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

                      OVERSIGHT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT:
                THE EVOLVING LANDSCAPE OF VOTING DISCRIMINATION

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

                                    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

                                   __________

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-17

                                   __________

             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
    46-431               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

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, April 22, 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...........................     6

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Julian Castro, Former United States Secretary of
      Housing and Urban Development
      Oral Testimony.................................................     9
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    11
    Reverend William J. Barber II, Ph.D., President, Repairers of the
      Breach
      Oral Testimony.................................................    14
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    16
    The Honorable Mark Robinson, Lieutenant Governor of North
      Carolina
      Oral Testimony.................................................    30
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    33
    Jacqueline De Leon, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund
      Oral Testimony.................................................    35
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    37

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    An excerpt from a Senate Judiciary Committee report submitted by
      the Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the Subcommittee on the
      Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State
      of Texas for the record........................................    64
    An article entitled, ``Texas voting bills target Democratic
      strongholds, just like Georgia's new laws,'' Houston Chronicle,
      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...............    96
    An article entitled, ``Here Are The Republicans Who Objected To
      The Electoral College Count,'' NPR, 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........................................   114

                                    APPENDIX

    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 24, 2014......   122
      An article entitled, ``Republicans Target Voter Access in Texas
        Cities, but Not Rural Areas,'' New York Times................   167
    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
      Statement from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee................   172
      An article entitled, ``Here's how Texas elections would change,
        and become more restrictive, under the bill Texas Republicans
        are pushing,'' Texas Tribune.................................   183

                      OVERSIGHT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT:

                THE EVOLVING LANDSCAPE OF VOTING DISCRIMINATION

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, April 22, 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 9:05 a.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Cohen
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Cohen, Nadler, Raskin, Ross,
    Johnson, Garcia, Bush, Jackson Lee, Johnson, Jordan,
    McClintock, Roy, and Owens.
        Also Present: Representative Bishop.
        Staff Present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty,
    Senior Advisor; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach
    Advisor; Jordan Dashow, Professional Staff Member; Cierra
    Fontenot, Staff Assistant; John Williams Parliamentarian;
    Keenan Keller, Senior Counsel; James Park, Chief Counsel; Will
    Emmons, Professional Staff Member; Betsy Ferguson, Minority
    Senior Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority Counsel; and Kiley
    Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
        Mr. Cohen. The Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on
    the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will come
    to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time. I welcome everyone to
    today's hearing on Oversight of the Voting Rights Act: The
    Evolving Landscape of Voter Discrimination.
        Before we continue, I would like to remind Members we have
    established an email address and distribution list dedicated to
    circulating exhibits, motions, or other written materials that
    Members might want to offer as part of our hearing today. If
    you would like to do so, Judiciarydocs@mail.house.gov is the
    appropriate place to send them. We will then distribute them to
    Members and staff as quickly as possible.
        I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Johnson for
    unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask
    unanimous consent that our House Judiciary colleague, Mr.
    Bishop from North Carolina be able to participate in the
    hearing this morning.
        Mr. Cohen. He shall be permitted to introduce his favorite
    son.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Cohen. Hearing no objection, we welcome Mr. Bishop to
    participate in today's hearing, recognize and introduce
    Lieutenant Governor Robinson. He will be able to question our
    witnesses if he is yielded time by a Subcommittee Member.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Cohen. You are very welcome. Finally, I would like to
    ask all Members and Witnesses, both those in person and those
    appearing remotely, to mute their microphones when you are not
    speaking. This will help prevent feedback, other technical
    issues. You may, of course, unmute yourself any time you seek
    recognition.
        I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. The
    late beloved and great Representative, John R. Lewis, my hero,
    my dear friend, my partner in making good trouble, and my
    honored colleague, shed his blood and almost died defending the
    right to vote, and seeking the right to vote. He often said, as
    he did in 2013, that the right to vote is the most powerful,
    nonviolent tool we have in a democracy. I risked my life
    defending that right. Some died in the struggle. If we are ever
    to actualize the true meaning of equality, effective measures,
    such as the Voting Rights Act, are still a necessary
    requirement of democracy.
        The right to vote is the right that guarantees all other
    rights in our democracy. Unfortunately, the voting rights of
    African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans,
    and other Members of racial and language minorities, have been
    threatened and undermined throughout our Nation's history. The
    Voting Rights Act with an effective preclearance provision went
    a long way towards righting that wrong.
        Sadly, since the Supreme Court's effective neutering of the
    preclearance provision, voting rights for minorities, once
    again, is under sustained assault in many parts of our country.
    The Act's preclearance provision requiring certain
    jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination against
    racial and language minority groups predominantly, though, not
    exclusively, in the Deep South, the States of the old
    confederacy, to obtain approval of any changes to their voting
    laws or procedures from the Department of Justice or the U.S.
    District Court for the District of Columbia before such changes
    could take effect.
        There were good reasons for that. History repeats itself
    often, and, unfortunately, in the Deep South, from where I
    hailed, that has gone on pre-Civil War, post-Civil War, pre-
    turn of the century, post-turn of the century, pre-election of
    2020, and post-election of 2020. This mechanism ensures that
    the new voting rules and practices in jurisdictions with a
    history of discrimination were fair to all voters.
        It rightly prevented potentially discriminatory voting
    practices from taking effect before they could harm minority
    voters and affect the election. In this way, preclearance
    proved to be a significant means of protection for the rights
    of minority voters, and for what America's about, everybody
    getting a chance to vote.
        This is why Congress had repeatedly reauthorized the pre-
    clearance provision on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. Most
    recently, in 2006, when the House passed reauthorization by a
    vote of 390-33, and the Senate by 98-0, a time when there were
    George Bush compassionate Republicans, a result due, in no
    small part, to the substantial efforts also of then-House
    Judiciary Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner, and then
    Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler.
        Unfortunately, the Supreme Court effectively gutted the
    VRA's preclearance requirement in 2013 in the case of Shelby
    County of Alabama v. Holder, when it struck down the geographic
    coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions would be
    subject to the preclearance requirement.
        As a result, the preclearance provision remains dormant
    unless and until Congress adopts a new coverage formula. Last
    Congress, I chaired seven hearings of this Subcommittee during
    which we gathered substantial evidence establishing extensive
    and detailed record of continued and ongoing voter suppression
    efforts, particularly by those subjurisdictions that were once
    subject to the preclearance.
        Old habits don't die easy. Old times, they are not
    forgotten. So, the effective absence of preclearance since the
    Shelby County decision is gone. For example, in the wake of
    Shelby County, North Carolina passed a sweeping voter
    suppression law that Federal appeals court ultimately held to
    be unconstitutional, finding it intentionally, quote,
    ``targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision,''
    unquote.
        Of course, that was after the election. No preclearance so
    the damage had been done. We also heard about recent measures
    to make it difficult or impossible for minority voters to
    exercise their right to vote. These measures included polling
    place closures and relocations, the purging of voter rolls that
    disproportionately target racial and ethnic minority voters,
    discriminatory photo ID laws, and the restrictions on ex-felon
    voting, all of which are designed to make it harder for
    African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities to
    vote.
        Things only seemed to have gotten worse in this regard
    since the 2020 election, when in response to the widespread but
    baseless claims of voter fraud, the big lie, there was no
    evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. State
    legislators, though, have introduced a slew of measures to
    curtail access to the ballot with a disproportionate impact on
    minority voters.
        Stacey Abrams laid that out clearly and abundantly to
    Senator Ted Cruz, when he asked about--excuse me, Senator John
    Kennedy, when he asked about racial effects of the Georgia law,
    and she went on and she went on and she went on, until he said,
    enough. I get it.
        I don't think he got it. According to the Brennan Center
    for Justice at New York University Law School as of a month
    ago, there was pending legislation in 47 States to restrict
    voting, and four States had already enacted restricted voting
    laws. These States include Georgia, States that have been
    subject to preclearance, pre-Shelby County where it is now a
    crime to give food or water to someone standing in line waiting
    to vote, outside the hundred-foot border, but it makes it a
    crime to do it within that 100-foot border food, to give food
    or water.
        Many of these legislative proposals will limit absentee
    voting, and impose stricter voter ID requirements, while others
    would make voting registration harder, expand voting roll
    purges, or adopt flawed practices that would risk improper
    purges, reduce the amount of days for early voting, and cut
    back on those early voting periods, according to the Brennan
    Center report.
        In the absence of effective preclearance regime, it is
    unsur-
    prising that discriminatory measures that have and will
    continue to undermine the voting rights of racial and language
    minority voters and erode our democracy. The 2020 election was
    an election which we should be proud of because of the output
    of the voters, the desire to vote was the greatest ever. This
    should be hailed as a great victory of democracy, and, yet we
    are looking at it as a failure and trying to retreat.
        While section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits
    discrimination of voting remains in effect, it is, by itself,
    less effective, significantly more cumbersome, and often
    prohibitively expensive way to enforce the Act. Most
    importantly, plaintiffs cannot invoke section 2 until after an
    alleged harm has taken place requiring discrimination victims
    to rely solely on such a remedy effectively neuters the Act.
        Even this provision is currently at significant risk in two
    pending cases before the Supreme Court that could result in
    section 2 being substantially curtailed, or even struck down as
    unconstitutional. The onus, therefore, is on Congress to create
    a new coverage formula to restore the Act's most important
    enforcement mechanism, its preclearance requirement, and to
    find other ways to strengthen the Act. Nothing less than the
    fairness and integrity of our democracy is at stake.
        I thank our witnesses, and I look forward to their
    testimony. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Mike Johnson,
    for his opening statement.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good
    morning and thanks to everybody for being here. Today's hearing
    is about the Voting Rights Act, and voting, as we all know and
    agree, is a fundamental right in this country and, indeed,
    blood has been shed to secure and sustain it.
        The election clause of the U.S. Constitution, it is article
    I, section 4 gives State legislators the authority to prescribe
    the times, places, and manner of holding elections. This means
    States are responsible for administering elections within their
    respected jurisdictions. This is an important part of our
    tradition. Enshrined in the 15th Amendment, it says States must
    also ensure that voting is accessible and available to every
    American citizen of voting age.
        To ensure the integrity of our system, States are also
    required to administer elections that are free from fraud and
    administrative errors. We had a unique election in 2020, and
    everybody knows it. The COVID-19 pandemic presented new
    challenges for that election cycle, and as a result of that,
    occasioned by the pandemic, there were some pretty dramatic
    alterations to how States administered their elections.
        For example, despite known vulnerabilities, many States
    implemented widespread, all mail-in voting. As a result of the
    2020 election, many States have enacted or proposed changes to
    change their State election laws now. These changes seek to
    enhance election integrity and increase the public's confidence
    in the election process.
        By any objective measure, all of us can agree, we know by
    common experience, we know by talking to our friends and
    neighbors and constituents, that there is a lot of concern
    about the integrity of our election system. There was a lot of
    controversy in 2020, and that has had some dire consequences.
        So, the States are trying to address it in a meaningful and
    reasonable way. The big example that everyone is seeing, one of
    the first out of the gates, is the State of Georgia. They
    recently enacted Senate bill 202, which expands early weekend
    voting and codifies the use of drop boxes.
        In Texas, another example, State lawmakers proposed
    legislation that would, quote, ``make it easier to vote and
    hard to cheat,'' unquote. I mean, who could oppose that?
        In Iowa, recently enacted legislation will provide State
    election officials with the revised parameters for Election Day
    voting periods, absentee voting, and database maintenance. All
    these State measures seek to promote and preserve the sanctity
    of the ballot box and our election system.
        The majority in this Congress, at least many of them, seem
    to be on a quest to mischaracterize the purpose and effect of
    these new State laws. Some would rather spread misinformation
    to instill fear, and, sadly, division among America's voters.
        They would rather pressure corporate America to react and
    boycott certain States because of baseless allegations of what
    they call voter suppression. It is a misleading narrative, and
    that misleading narrative about these changes is also having
    dire consequences. It is confusing people, and it is causing
    more division. These changes to the election laws, they say,
    will cause massive voter suppression or constitute Jim Crow
    2.0. Those are wildly inappropriate and unfounded accusations.
        We want to be clear: Republicans, all our colleagues, all
    Republicans across the country want every legally cast ballot
    to count. We know that that is essential to our system. We want
    to close the door to fraud, and illegally cast ballots at the
    same time, so that all voters of all parties can trust the
    outcome and know that every election is free and fair.
        My friends, this is the only way we can preserve our
    republic. On July 4, we are about to have our Nation's
    birthday. It is only going to be the 245th anniversary, or
    245th year as a Nation. We are still an experiment on the world
    stage. The Founders were clear about this. They were setting up
    a new form of government, a constitutional republic like ours
    with our democratic principles.
        We don't know how long this form of government can last,
    but what they were certain about, and what we know today, is
    that to preserve it, you have to maintain its foundations, and
    one of those critical foundations to have a government of, by,
    and for the people as Lincoln said, is that you must have faith
    in the election system.
        So, I hope today we can have a productive conversation
    about the Voting Rights Act, and how we can best assist States
    in enhancing voter protections and increase the integrity of
    our elections. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
    today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I now recognize the
    Chair of the Full Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Nadler, largely responsible for passage of the last Voting
    Rights Act. Mr. Nadler, you are recognized.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Chair, the Voting Rights Act is rightly regarded by
    many as our Nation's most important civil rights law. Many
    Americans, including our late beloved colleague John Lewis shed
    their blood in support of its passage. The institutions of
    government, including this one in which we have the honor of
    serving, better reflect our Nation's diversity because of its
    vigorous enforcement.
        During today's hearing, we will hear about how this
    progress remains under threat in the continued aftermath of the
    Supreme Court's disastrous 2013 Shelby County v. Holder
    decision, and why we need to restore the Voting Rights Act to
    its full vitality. Without question, the VRA has been an
    unqualified success. It helped to reduce discriminatory
    barriers to voting and expanded electoral opportunities for
    people of color to Federal, State, and local offices, thereby
    opening the political process to every American.
        Despite evidence of the VRA's success, however, the Supreme
    Court in 2013, Shelby County, substituted its own judgment for
    that of Congress in rejecting Congress' conclusion that the
    record supported the VRA's reauthorization. This decision
    effectively gutted the Act's most important enforcement
    mechanism, its section 5 preclearance provision. Specifically,
    it struck down the formula for determining which States and
    localities are subject to preclearance, which had the effect of
    striking down the preclearance provision itself, as there is no
    longer a basis for subjecting decisions to its requirements.
    Although, it left it up to Congress to pass a valid
    preclearance section.
        Before the VRA, States and localities passed a host of
    voter suppression laws, secured in the knowledge that it could
    take many years before the Justice Department could
    successfully challenge them in court, if at all. As soon as one
    law is overturned another would be enacted, essentially setting
    up a discriminatory game of Whack-A-Mole. Section 5 of the VRA
    broke this legal log jam by requiring States and localities
    with a history of discrimination against racial and ethnic
    minority voters to submit changes to their voting laws to the
    Justice Department or to a court for approval prior to taking
    effect.
        In the absence of preclearance, predictably the game of
    Whack-A-Mole has returned. Within 24 hours of the Shelby County
    decision, both Texas attorney general and North Carolina's
    general assembly announced they would reinstitute Draconian
    voter ID laws. Both States' laws were later held in Federal
    court to be intentionally racially discriminatory, but during
    the years between their enactment and the Court's final
    decision, many elections were conducted while the laws remained
    in place.
        Since the Shelby County decision, we have seen a dramatic
    rise in the number of voter suppression measures. Burdensome
    proof of citizenship laws, significant scale-backs to early
    voting periods, restrictions on absentee ballots, and laws that
    make it harder to restore the voting rights of formerly
    incarcerated individuals, are just a small sample of recent
    voting changes that have a disproportionate impact on minority
    voters.
        Indeed, there is now renewed effort underway in the States
    to enact just these types of voter suppression measures. This
    time justified under the pretense of addressing the baseless
    allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election that have been
    promoted by former President Trump and his allies, the big lie.
    To be clear, there is simply no evidence that significant voter
    fraud or voting irregularities, in any way, affected the
    outcome of the 2020 elections, and every single court that has
    ruled on that, there were 62 cases, has found the same thing,
    unanimously.
        Yet, after having promoted these false allegations to the
    public, many legislators announced citing a decline in trust in
    elections to justify Draconian voter restrictions. The Ranking
    Member said that many people doubted the accuracy of our
    elections. Sure, because they have been told systemically by
    Mr. Trump and his allies that nonexistent voting fraud
    occurred.
        According to a recent Brennan Center for Justice report
    just this year as of March 24, State legislators in 47 States
    have introduced 361 bills with restrictive provisions. There
    are at least 55 restrictive voting laws currently moving
    through the legislative process in 24 States. Four States have
    already enacted new restrictive voting laws. One particularly
    egregious example is SB202, a Georgia law that imposes numerous
    new burdens on voting, including onerous identification
    requirements for absentee voting, restrictions for early
    voting, and most notoriously, criminal penalties for offering
    food or water to voters waiting in long lines to vote.
        Notably, Georgia was previously subject to the VRA's pre-
    clearance regime. While such actions may violate other
    provisions of the VRA, time and experience have proven that it
    takes far longer, and is far more expensive to pursue after-
    the-fact legal remedies. Once a vote has been denied while the
    court proceedings proceed for several years, it cannot be
    recast. The damage to our democracy is permanent. Yet, even
    section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits voting discrimination
    nationwide, after the fact, now may be under threat at the
    Supreme Court. In a consolidated case currently before the
    Court, the justices are being asked to uphold two Arizona
    election laws that were challenged under section 2 as
    discriminatory to Native American, Latino, and African-American
    voters.
        It is quite possible that the Court, in deciding these
    cases, could hamstring future plaintiffs' ability to even bring
    or prove a section 2 claim by imposing a new legal standard
    that may place additional hurdles that many plaintiffs are
    unable to meet. The Court could even go so far as to strike
    section 2 down as unconstitutional.
        Congress cannot continue to let these challenges to the VRA
    go unanswered. This landmark law is a bulwark of American
    democracy. It is, at its heart, a necessary remedy to cure the
    scourge of voting discrimination by preventing our Nation from
    backsliding into a time when denying racial and ethnic
    minorities the right to vote was a matter of government policy.
    Though progress has been made, too many Americans are still
    denied the right to vote because of their race, ethnicity, or
    language or minority status and, the threat of a backslide is
    ever present.
        Reauthorization of the VRA historically has been a strongly
    bipartisan effort. That is why it is my hope that Members on
    both sides of the aisle, and in both Chambers of Congress will
    come to together and pass legislation to restore the law to its
    full strength.
        I thank the Chair for holding this important hearing, which
    will provide another opportunity to renew our understanding of
    the importance of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the
    challenges it continues to face. I look forward to hearing from
    the excellent witnesses participating in today's panel.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We welcome our witnesses today. We thank them for
    participating in today's hearing. I will recognize each of them
    before their statements, and then recognize them for their oral
    testimony thereafter. Each of your written statements will be
    entered in the record in its entirety, and we ask you to
    summarize your statements in 5 minutes.
        I understand there are some types of lighting system that
    you can see here for those witnesses in the Chamber, in the
    Committee room, and if it is green, that means you are on; if
    it is yellow, that means you got a minute to go; and if it is
    red, that means you should be finished.
        On television there is a spot--not television. On
    smartphone or your iPhone or iPad or whatever, there is a Webex
    view that should show you how much time you have left on the
    screen.
        Before proceeding with the testimony, I would like to
    remind all the Witnesses appearing here that you are under
    penalty of the law if your testimony is not truthful, and your
    answers to the Subcommittee aren't truthful. Any false
    statement would subject you to prosecution under section 1001
    of title 18 of the U.S. Code.
        Our first witness is Julian Castro. The only thing better
    than one Castro is two Castros, and you are shadowed by your
    other Castro and we welcome you to the Committee room, Mr.
    Congressman Castro.
        Mr. Castro served as Secretary of Housing and Urban
    Development from 2014 to 2017 during the Obama Administration.
    Prior to that, he was the mayor of San Antonio, Texas, from
    2009 to 2014, also a candidate for the Democratic nomination
    for President in 2020.
        Today, he serves on the board of the LBJ Foundation, is an
    advocate for the protection of voting rights for Latinos and
    other Americans, and he is also known as the twin brother of
    our colleague, the honorable, distinguished, erudite leader,
    Representative Joaquin Castro.
        Secretary Castro received his J.D. from Harvard Law School
    and his B.A. from Stanford University, and I suspect his
    brother did, too. I think it was kind of a tag team.
        Secretary Castro, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JULIAN CASTRO

        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to Chair Cohen, to Chair
    Nadler, to Vice Chair Ross, Ranking Member Johnson, and all the
    Members of the committee. I am honored to address this
    Committee on the fundamental and timely issue of safeguarding
    the franchise.
        Mr. Cohen. The rules say you must have your mask on.
        Mr. Castro. Will do.
        My testimony this morning, as you noted, Mr. Chair, is a
    family affair in more ways than one. My brother, Joaquin, is
    your colleague and serves as a Representative of the 20th
    Congressional District. Joaquin and I grew up on the west side
    of the San Antonio, Texas, a working class, predominantly
    Mexican American neighborhood. We were raised by our mother,
    Rosie Castro, who was an outspoken activist in the Mexican
    American civil rights movement in the 1970s. She became an
    activist because she felt her community was being overlooked,
    and that the rights of Latinos like her were not being
    protected and advanced.
        It is fitting that I join you today to discuss the Voting
    Rights Act, because just under 50 years ago, my mother was
    compiling data and research on behalf of the Mexican-American
    legal defense and education fund for a presentation on the
    exact same topic that would be used in preparation for
    testimony to this very committee.
        She and many other advocates believed that there had not
    been enough progress on voting rights for Latinos, and that the
    1965 Voting Rights Act had left gaps that States and local
    communities were exploiting to disenfranchise and suppress
    voters. Unfortunately, five decades later, I am here for very
    much the same reason.
        In my home State of Texas today, there is an all-out
    assault on the right to vote. For generations, Texas has been a
    testing ground for devious ways to restrict access to the
    polls. Since the Shelby decision in 2013, the State has cut
    more polling locations than any State in the Nation. Texas
    enacted a strict voter ID law that permits firearm licenses to
    be used to vote, but prohibits the use of student IDs, and
    lawmakers have used things like voter registration deadlines,
    restricted voting hours, and limitations on early voting to
    chip away at the franchise of millions of people.
        In fact, on the very day the 1965 Voting Rights Act was
    signed into law, President Lyndon B. Johnson sued his home
    State of Texas to block the poll tax, a policy Texas would be
    the last to eliminate. Only through a ballot referendum passed
    by the voters in 1966, the 24th Amendment, which prohibited the
    poll tax, was ratified by the States in 1964, but Texas did not
    actually ratify the amendment until 2009.
        Today, the legislature in my home State continues to debate
    a new round of voting bills that are defended by lawmakers with
    the same justification used to defend the poll tax. Under the
    guise of voter integrity, lawmakers have introduced legislation
    that would slash voting hours and the number of voting machines
    at polling locations, make it much more difficult to vote by
    mail, and even allow partisan poll waters to film voters as
    they cast a ballot. This is nothing new for Texas.
        Just hours after the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby decision
    effectively eliminated the preclearance requirement of the
    Voting Rights Act for States like Texas, State leaders advanced
    a photo ID law that had been rejected by the Justice Department
    just 1 year earlier. The new law, which is still in place
    today, swiftly disenfranchised 600,000 registered voters that
    didn't have the requisite ID, a disproportionate number being
    Black or Latino.
        The elimination of preclearance has allowed Texas to become
    the most difficult State to vote in the Nation, as well as one
    of the most gerrymandered. More than ever, we need stronger
    Federal protections that restore and realize the voting rights
    of our citizens. We need an updated Voting Rights Act to make
    good on the promise of the 15th amendment that no citizen be
    denied the right to vote based on race.
        Voting rights shouldn't be a partisan issue. As recently as
    2006, the Senate voted unanimously, and the House nearly
    unanimously, to renew every section of the Voting Rights Act,
    including the preclearance provision. Congress knew in each of
    the four times they reauthorized the VRA, that we must protect
    the rights of voters and reaffirm the American principle of
    antidiscrimination. They knew then this timeless truth: The
    right to vote shouldn't depend on the color of one's skin, how
    much money one has, or what State one lives in.
        It is a right guaranteed to every eligible American
    citizen. It is the cornerstone of our democracy, and it is what
    the late Representative John Lewis--for whom the new Voting
    Rights Act is named--described in his final letter as, quote:
    ``The most powerful, nonviolent change agent you have in a
    democratic society.'' I urge you to pass the John Lewis Voting
    Rights Act.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Castro follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much, Secretary Castro. Good to
    have you back, and I want you to know that the choice
    neighborhood grant that we got when you were there is doing
    great. Thank you.
        Our next witness is the Reverend William J. Barber, the
    second. In a moment, I will recognize Representative Ross who
    understandably as the vice chair of this Subcommittee and a
    North Carolinian, and a friend who wants to introduce Reverend
    Barber.
        Before so, I would like to say a few words. Reverend Barber
    is an amazing man, who, as a young man, has already consumed
    the mantle as, in my opinion, the premier spokesperson in the
    United States of America on civil rights issues.
        On Saturday, he was in Memphis, Tennessee, stopping off on
    his way to Jackson, Mississippi, to start a new Poor People's
    Campaign. In Memphis, he spoke about racial environmental
    injustice with the Byhalia pipeline going through a minority
    neighborhood and potentially threatening our precious aquifer
    where we get our drinking water. The previous rally before
    Reverend Barber came, Vice-President Gore spoke. He told us it
    was racist, it was reckless, and it was a rip-off.
        Reverend Barber told us not here, not now, not ever on our
    watch. We thank you for coming to Memphis. Believe Memphis.
        I now recognize Congresswoman Ross.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am delighted to have
    Reverend Dr. William Barber with us today. I am privileged to
    have known, worked with, and worshipped with Reverend Barber
    for years, and it is really, truly an honor to introduce him.
        Reverend Barber serves as the President of the Repairers of
    the Breach. He is Co-Chair of the Poor People's Campaign,
    bishop with a fellowship of affirming ministries, visiting
    professor at Union Theological Seminary, pastor at Greenleaf
    Christian Church, where I have worshipped, and the author of
    four books.
        Reverend Barber previously served as President of the North
    Carolina NAACP, and he currently sits on the national NAACP
    Board of Directors. Reverend Barber has made it his life
    mission to lift people up. He has been a championing for voting
    rights and peoples' rights, both in North Carolina and on the
    national stage. He led the charge in securing same-day voter
    registration in North Carolina in 2007. While I was the one who
    introduced the bill in the general assembly, I know that it
    would not have passed without Reverend Barber's advocacy and
    leadership.
        Reverend Barber is the architect of the moral movement,
    which began as a weekly Moral Monday protest at the North
    Carolina General Assembly in 2013, and I served in the general
    assembly at that time. During these gatherings, which I
    witnessed on Monday nights, protesters found themselves locked
    out of the general assembly, and arrested for exercising their
    First amendment right to petition the government for redress of
    grievance, even though, there was never a threat to those
    inside. I never felt threatened.
        Recently, Reverend Barber helped relaunch the moral
    movement as part of the nationwide Poor People's Campaign,
    which was famously begun by Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King,
    Jr., and triggered the historic civil rights protest across the
    Nation. Reverend Barber is a MacArthur Foundation Genius Award
    recipient, with a national following and countless speaking
    credits to his name. He continues to lead services at his
    modest church in Goldsboro, North Carolina. He is the
    embodiment of a life lived in service to others, and I am
    honored to welcome him to this committee.
        I yield back, Chair Cohen.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Congresswoman Ross, for that personal
    introduction. Without further ado, Reverend Barber, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        I think you are muted. You are muted.

           STATEMENT OF REVEREND WILLIAM J. BARBER II, Ph.D.

        Rev. Barber. Thank you, Chair Cohen, for your great work,
    and thank you to my dear friend, the Representative
    Congresswoman Ross.
        The threat of free exercise of the ballot by the Negro and
    White masses is what created a segregated society. This is what
    happened when the Negro and White masses of the south
    threatened to unite and build a great society, a society where
    greed and poverty would be done away with. The ballot to
    suppress the vote and the ballot to suppress labor rights has
    been the tactic used by the southern White aristocracy to hold
    on to their money and their power, Martin Luther King, 1968.
        In the wake of this moment, an organized coup attempt
    emboldened by hate, lies, and racism on January the 6, 2021, at
    the U.S. Capitol, the people of America and this Congress set
    up the crossroads of a historic moment, calling for us to fight
    for the sole of our democracy, and enact full protections of
    our sacred right to vote by expanding voting rights and fully
    restoring the Voting Rights Act, section 5 preclearance.
        As we come together this morning less than a hundred days
    since the inauguration of a new American Government, at least
    361 deals have been introduced in 47 legislatures to suppress
    the right to vote. In my State of North Carolina, we have
    labored for over 8 years defending against an all-out attack on
    voting rights.
        In North Carolina, the majority that gained power in North
    Carolina General Assembly in 2010, they quickly redrew both
    State legislative districts and U.S. congressional districts in
    their favor, illegally, using race as a primary indicator of
    voters who opposed their agenda. After years of heroic
    fighting, both in the streets and in the courts by the forward
    together moral movement, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court would
    issue a remarkable per curiam decision, striking down as a
    sweeping unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, the maps that
    created an unaccountable legislative super majority in the
    State House. It was described by one judge as an
    unconstitutionally constituted legislature.
        This unconstituted legislature that was set in place in
    2011, and then in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting
    Rights Act in Shelby v. Holder, by eliminating section 5. In
    just a matter of hours after the ruling was handed down, the
    unconstitutionally constituted extremist super majority of a
    North Carolina General Assembly announced that because Shelby
    had rid them of the headache of the Voting Rights Act
    preclearance protections, they could now move forward with what
    would become to know as the monster voter suppression law.
        A sweeping omnibus voter suppression bill that erected a
    slate of stringent, racially discriminatory barriers to the
    ballot. The law eliminated same-day registration,
    preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, out of precinct
    ballots, the first week of early voting, and instituted one of
    the Nation's most stringent voter ID laws.
        This monstrous voter suppression law, the worst of its kind
    in the Nation after Shelby, was only possible because
    preclearance protection was no longer in place. After years of
    organizing and legal battles and even civil disobedience and
    arrest, the monster voter suppression law was eventually struck
    down as intentionally racially discriminatory.
        In July 2016, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for the Fourth Circuit hailed that the law targeted
    African-Americans with almost surgical precision and imposed
    cures for problems that did not exist.
        As we sit here today, North Carolina's legislature is still
    trying to implement voter suppression laws, and Republican
    persons from our State have refused to push for restoration of
    the Voting Rights Act. Today marks for 2,858 days or 7 years, 9
    months, and 28 days.
        We cannot continue this assault on the right to vote. We
    are living in a time when voters of color hold increased
    potential for political power, more than 30 percent of
    America's eligible voters. We are also living in a time in
    which America is home to 140 million poor and low-income
    people, over 43.5 percent of the population in the richest
    country in the world.
        This includes 39 million children, 74.2 million women, 60.4
    percent, or 26 million Black people, and over 66 million White
    people. Increasing the harm on these 140 million individuals
    and people of color in this Nation comes whenever the right to
    vote is restricted or undermined. As Dr. King said, it is used
    as a tool whenever there is a threat for Black and White, and
    we might say today brown, Asian, and indigenous, to come
    together and vote in a way that transforms our political power
    and economic power in this country.
        We must pass and fully restore and expand the Voting Rights
    Act, section 5 preclearance, and we must do it now.
        [The statement of Reverend Barber follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cohen. Amen. Thank you, Reverend Barber.
        Our next witness is Mark Robinson. Mr. Robinson is the
    Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson of the State of North
    Carolina, and I recognize our guest member, Mr. Dan Bishop,
    Representative Dan Bishop, to introduce Lieutenant Governor
    Robinson.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mark Keith Robinson burst on to the public scene April 3,
    2018, in a public comment delivered to the city council of
    Greensboro, North Carolina, on the subject of the reflex of
    government to diminish Second amendment rights of law-abiding
    citizens in response to shootings that occur.
        The viral video of that event was well-received, and his
    message was powerful on the subject matter he spoke to, but the
    real thunderclap was a point in the message when Mr. Robinson
    told the city council, it is about time you start listening to
    the majority. Let me tell you who that is. I am the majority is
    what Mark Robinson said in words that galvanized the public.
        Over months that followed, he emerged as a national figure,
    and demonstrated himself to be a thoughtful and learned student
    of history, and he brought a fresh perspective, and he revealed
    himself as a natural communicator. In the ensuing 2 years, the
    enthusiastic response to Mr. Robinson led him to run for and he
    was elected as the first Black Lieutenant Governor in North
    Carolina's history fittingly as a Republican.
        No person in public life today better articulates the
    essence of our core freedoms and opportunities or more
    effectively debunks the absurd wokism that afflicts our
    political discourse than Mark Robinson. Lieutenant Governor
    Robinson epitomizes the promise of American liberty and
    opportunity, and I can think of no one better to cut through
    the hyper partisan exaggerations we have heard in recent
    discourse over voter integrity, and to provide an honest
    assessment of the best ways to ensure that all Americans can
    realize the American dream, regardless of their background,
    then Lieutenant Government Robinson.
        Lieutenant Governor, thank you for being here today and I
    look forward to hearing your testimony.
        Mr. Cohen. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK ROBINSON

        Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Chair Cohen, and Ranking Member
    Johnson and all the Members of the Committee for allowing me to
    speak today. I am honored to sit before this Committee and
    testify before this body on such an important topic, a topic
    that hits close to home for me. You see, I am the first Black
    Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, and I hail from
    Greensboro, home of the Woolworth's sit-ins, an epicenter for
    civil rights movement. I grew up poor as the ninth of 10
    children in a home marred by alcoholism, but I had a mother who
    was a strong woman of faith and she sustained us. She was also
    a woman who lived through the terribleness of Jim Crow and
    witnessed, first-hand the sacrifices made by those who ensured
    that Black voices would be heard in government. I know right
    now, she is up in heaven smiling as she sees her son here
    sitting in this Committee hearing. Today I am not here to talk
    about myself. I am here to talk about voter discrimination and
    election integrity.
        The subject of this hearing is the Evolving Landscape of
    Voter Discrimination, and it certainly has throughout our
    Nation's history. Let me say that I am very proud of the
    history in this Nation of my people. My people were put in the
    belly of ships, bound in chains, and endured the middle
    passage. My people were whipped, beaten, and sold as property
    during slavery. During Reconstruction and throughout Jim Crow,
    Black people were intimidated, harassed, and even killed to
    keep them from having a voice in government. Symbols like
    chains, nooses, and burnt crosses are not just symbols of
    death; they are symbols of forced and coerced silence.
        The sacrifices of our ancestors, so I could have the
    opportunity to become the first Black Lieutenant Governor of my
    State, to see a Black man sit in the White House for two terms,
    and for millions of us to be leaders in business, athletics,
    government, and culture, add up to an incredible story of
    victory.
        Today, we hear Georgia law being compared to Jim Crow, that
    Black voices are being silenced, and that Black voices are
    being kept out. How? By bullets? By bombs? By nooses? No, by
    requiring a free ID to secure the vote. Let me say that, again.
    By requiring a free ID to secure the vote. How absolutely
    preposterous.
        Am I to believe that Black Americans who have overcome the
    atrocities of slavery, who were victorious in the civil rights
    movement, and now sit in the highest levels of this government
    cannot figure out how to get a free ID to secure their votes;
    that they need to be coddled by politicians because they don't
    think we can figure out how to make our voices heard? Are you
    kidding me?
        The notion that Black people must be protected from a free
    ID to secure their votes is not just insane, it is insulting.
    Just a few days ago--excuse me--and let me tell you something
    about this. This doesn't have anything to do with justice. This
    has everything to do with power. Just a few days ago, the Vice-
    President Went to the very place that I mentioned, the
    Woolworth's counter in Greensboro. You know who wasn't there?
    You know who wasn't invited? My good friend, Clarence
    Henderson, who is a civil rights icon. He sat at that counter
    and endured the suffering and pain to make sure that Black
    voices were heard. Why was he left out? Because he is of a
    different political persuasion.
        You might ask why this is so? I will tell you plainly, the
    goal of some individuals in government is not to hear the
    voices of Black Americans at all; it is to hear the voices that
    fit their narratives and ultimately help keep power with one
    group, and that is what this assault is all about. It is about
    power.
        Just look at H.R. 1. It is despicable. The entire thing is
    designed to keep one party in power and assure they stay there
    indefinitely. How do they plan to do that? By taking voter
    rights of States given by the Constitution to govern their own
    elections, to mandate a partisan wish list that comes down from
    that Federal Government.
        Some of these items include using government dollars to
    fund campaigns to give an advantage to one party, mandating
    that felons are allowed to vote, including illegal immigrants
    on voter rolls, and, of course, trying to ban States from
    having voter ID. The last thing I will say is this: Many people
    know that I am a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, and
    I always will be. I believe that the right to keep and bear
    arms should always be available to law-abiding citizens, but
    the first line of defense in maintaining the integrity of the
    Second amendment is having an ID to show and requiring that ID
    when you purchase that firearm, in the same way I believe that
    voter ID is our first line of defense for protecting the
    integrity of the right to vote, and that is what this should be
    about. It should be about integrity, not power.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Our final witness is Jacqueline De
    Leon. Ms. De Leon is the staff attorney with the Native
    American Rights Fund, and a member of the Isleta Pueblo. As
    staff attorney at NARF, she helped lead field hearings across
    Indian Country on Native American voting rights, co-authored
    NARF's report, ``Obstacles at Every Turn: Barriers to Political
    Participation Faced by Native American Voters,'' and practices
    ongoing voter rights litigation. She has testified before
    Congress on multiple occasions detailing voting rights issues
    in Indian Country. Ms. De Leon received her J.D. from Stanford
    Law School and her B.A. from Princeton University. She checked
    clerked for Judge William H. Walls of the United States
    District Court for the District of New Jersey and Chief Justice
    Dana Fabe of the Alaska Supreme Court.
        Ms. De Leon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE DE LEON

        Ms. De Leon. Good morning, Chair Cohen and Ranking Member
    Johnson, and Members of the subcommittee. My name is Jacqueline
    De Leon, and I am a member of the Isleta Pueblo, and I am a
    staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund known as
    NARF, the Nation's largest and oldest nonprofit law firm
    dedicated to advancing the rights of Native Americans.
        Thank you for having me testify on the pressing need for
    Federal action to fully restore the Voting Rights Act. In 2018,
    the Native American Voting Rights Coalition completed a series
    of nine field hearings across Indian Country, which I co-led.
    We heard from approximately 125 witnesses generating thousands
    of pages of transcripts about voting in Federal and State
    elections. Our findings are extensively documented in a report
    I released in June of 2020 and am humbled to be carrying their
    stories with me here today. We are updating that report and
    will provide the Subcommittee with a copy as soon as it is
    completed.
        NARF has also successfully brought a number of seminal
    Native American voting rights cases in the last 4 years,
    including challenges to North Dakota's voter ID law, a
    challenge to Montana's ballot collection ban, a challenge to
    Alaska's witness signature requirement during a pandemic, and a
    2020 lawsuit challenging the refusal to open an in-person
    polling location on the Blackfeet reservation.
        In that case, county officials were given the option of all
    mail-in voting because of the pandemic. Pondera County chose to
    keep in-person voting at their county seat, which ensured
    access for the over 90 percent White residents, but denied in-
    person voting to Blackfeet Tribal Members who do not get mail
    delivered to their home, and who would have had to travel 120
    miles to vote.
        Only after we sued did the county agree to on-reservation
    voting access. Relying upon the 14th and 15th Amendments and
    the VRA, Native American voters have filed nearly 100 lawsuits
    with a success rate of over 90 percent. These cases have been
    litigated in front of judges appointed by Republican and
    Democratic presidents, and yet, the overwhelming staff pattern
    compel relief. In short, the facts are so bad, we nearly always
    win.
        Today, many Native American reservations are rural, distant
    from the nearest off-reservation border town, because of
    official policies to forcibly remove, segregate them on remote
    and undesirable land. Travel to voting services, DMVs, and post
    offices, can be hundreds of miles away. Due to ongoing
    discrimination and governmental neglect, many Native Americans
    live in overcrowded homes, but do not have addresses, do not
    receive mail, and are located on dirt roads that can be
    impassable in winter in November.
        There are Native Americans today that cannot access basic
    government services. The need for Federal action is urgent and
    compelling. This year, legislators in States across the country
    are capitalizing upon these vulnerabilities and making it
    unreasonably difficult for Native Americans to vote.
        NARF is monitoring over 100 discriminatory bills introduced
    in 14 States with sizeable Native American populations.
    Arizona, in particular, has taken advantage of the suspension
    of section 5, introducing at least 27 proposed bills that make
    it too hard for Natives to vote. A fully functioning Voting
    Rights Act would force objective review of these laws. Instead,
    NARF is preparing for costly and time-consuming litigation.
        Finally, in case there is any doubt that Native Americans
    face overt discrimination on the basis of race, NARF has
    collected extensive evidence of racism faced by Native American
    voters. For example, this past election, the weekend before
    election day, a man who won the local costume contest in a town
    bordering the Fort Peck Reservation. He was dressed in a Ku
    Klux Klan attire.
        As a Tribal member like me, this is why satellite voting
    sites are so important for our Tribal Members. Not everyone is
    comfortable going into places in Glasgow, and not everyone in
    Glasgow is going to make our Tribal Members feel welcome. These
    racist attitudes are not just the work of private individuals.
    Voting officials also discriminate against Native Americans.
    Less than 10 years ago in South Dakota, Native Americans were
    forced to vote out of a chicken coop. In 2018, a San Juan
    County clerk in Utah committed fraud to kick a Native American
    candidate off the ballot who was only reinstated after a
    Federal Court ordered it.
        Overt discrimination remains a present-day problem in need
    of present-day solutions. It is no surprise that experiences
    like these have provoked a widespread distrust of Federal,
    State, and local governments among Native Americans. Today, I
    place my trust in the Federal Government, and in this Committee
    to provide the protection Native Americans need and deserve, so
    they may vote safely and free from racist discrimination.
    Despite widespread voter suppression in Indian Country, we do
    not have the resources to bring every case. I urge this
    Committee to do the necessary work of investigating and
    recording these injustices, and to craft a coverage formula
    that restores the Voting Rights Act.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. De Leon follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cohen. Thank you so much. We will now go into our
    question phase, and I will first recognize myself for 5 minutes
    of questioning.
        We have heard a lot to date from the other side and the
    other side's witnesses about the State legislators making the
    laws, and that is our system. That is the system that gave us
    counting beans in a jar. That is the system that gave us a
    system where African Americans were denied the right to vote
    for many years, and every opportunity in every way possible. We
    can't just fold up our hands and give it to the State
    legislators because, if we did that, we know we would be back
    in Jim Crow times.
        Reverend Barber, the entire State of North Carolina was
    technically not subject to the Voting Rights Act preclearance
    provision. Some of it was, of course. Most of it, I think, but
    dozens of individual counties were covered at the time cited
    before Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. How have discriminatory
    voting practices evolved over time in the State of North
    Carolina since the Shelby County decision?
        Rev. Barber. Well, thank you, Chair Cohen.
        Can you hear me?
        Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
        Rev. Barber. Thank you so much. Jim Crow like James Crow,
    Esquire, that dresses up in a suit today, always claim it to be
    benign and nonracial, but when examined under the microscope of
    the Constitution, they are always found to be racist. What we
    know is, more than 60 times prior to the Shelby decision, that
    we in North Carolina have to fight racialize voter
    discrimination.
        Now, I will admit, we had to fight Democrats and
    Republicans, let's be honest about that, since 1965. Since the
    case, since Shelby, we have had the worst voter suppression
    laws since the days of all-out Jim Crow attempted to be passed
    and passed and implemented, and placed on the people of North
    Carolina only to later, after extended legal battles, to be
    found as the Court said surgical racism, and what is absurd is
    for someone to say that a Supreme Court, the majority which
    were appointed by Republicans, and the Fourth Circuit, which
    was a three panel, two Whites, one African-American, absurd
    when they found, under the law, that this was surgical,
    surgical racism, and that is the ugliness of it.
        If preclearance would have been in place, they would not
    have made it. Those laws would not have made it on the books
    and undermined the voting rights of African-Americans, Black
    people, Brown people, indigenous people, poor people, in North
    Carolina.
        Lastly, if Republicans are so sure that they are not
    engaging in racism, they would have no problem with
    preclearance because all preclearance does is checks it out
    before it is implemented into law.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Reverend Barber. It was said here by,
    I believe, your Lieutenant Governor, that there is nothing
    wrong with an ID; that it is not racist at all. It is simple to
    get. Personally, I dread the idea of getting a real ID, which
    we will eventually have to get because in Memphis, it is a long
    way to drive to get to a place to get a real ID, and a long
    line, and I don't want to deal with it.
        Are there not a lot of people possibly in rural North
    Carolina, and even inner-city North Carolina, who might not
    have access to cars to make it easy, people born a long time
    ago and getting an ID is difficult?
        Rev. Barber. Well, it is worse than that. First, this is
    not just about an ID. It is about strict photo ID that will
    say, for instance, a gun ID is valid, but an ID from a college
    or university is not. Even when you claim its free, we have a
    restriction. You cannot make someone have to spend money, even
    gas money, new form of a poll tax to try to make someone go get
    something that is not needed and that is being implemented for
    a problem that is not a problem. The problem of fraud, the
    claim of fraud is fraudulent in and of itself.
        Lastly, Chair Cohen, what we should also recognize is that
    Republicans and Democrats in North Carolina long ago settled on
    something called ``signature attestation'' with a 5-year
    felony. That is what we did in North Carolina. You have to sign
    and affirm. When you first--after you get registered, it is
    proven that you are who you are. Then when you come, you have
    to sign a signature attestation with the penalty of a 5-year
    felony, and there was no instances of fraud.
        This whole issue of fraud happened after North Carolina
    voted for President Obama in 2008, and then there was all these
    claims that something went wrong. Nothing went wrong. People
    just had the right to expanded vote through same-day
    registration and early voting, and they chose to vote. I ask
    the question always, Representative Cohen, that the judge asked
    when we went to court. He looked at the Republican lawyer and
    asked this question: Why is it that you do not want people to
    vote? Just answer that for me. Why is it that you do not want
    people to vote? That is the fundamental question. That is why
    we need the Voting Rights Act preclearance restored.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Reverend Barber. My time is up, but I
    will answer your question. A Republican lawyer before the
    Supreme Court recently in a case on voting rights said, ``We
    can't win if everybody votes.''
        Mr. Johnson, you are recognized.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I just want to say, Lieutenant Governor Robinson, I think
    your testimony this morning was so compelling, and I wish every
    American could see it. We will clip that video, and I promise
    you we will get it out there, because you are sharing the
    truth.
        We have just heard in the last 5 minutes, Reverend Barber
    has lamented today what he sees as the situation in North
    Carolina. Of course, we all agree it is a shame that Democrat-
    controlled State governments established Jim Crow laws to
    prevent Black Americans from voting and exercising other
    freedoms.
        North Carolina is your State too, Lieutenant Governor
    Robinson. You are the first Black Lieutenant Governor in the
    history of the State. You are wildly popular there, and we can
    all see why this morning.
        I just want to ask you for your perspective. Let me ask
    you, is there rampant voter discrimination occurring around
    this country and/or specifically in North Carolina.
        Mr. Robinson. Absolutely, no, there is not.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is your microphone on? Make sure
    that button--there you go.
        Mr. Robinson. There absolutely is not. I am confident in
    that.
        This entire thing goes, again, back to this whole issue--
    and it always goes back to the issue--whenever we talk about
    this issue, it always goes back to the ID issue. Having that ID
    to vote puts up that first firewall to create the integrity
    that we need for our elections.
        I just can't express--let me just tell you a story. I have
    a father-in-law who was in prison for 43 years, a Black man,
    imprisoned for 43 years. The very first thing he did when he
    got out of prison was get a driver's license.
        Where is this ``no access'' to IDs that exists? Why do we
    look at poor people and Brown people and think that they are
    less than and that they can't figure out how our systems work,
    they can't figure out where the DMV is, they can't figure out
    where this agency is to go down and get this ID that is being
    offered?
        I can't express to you how insulting this is, for someone
    to look at me and actually say that the reason why we don't
    need IDs to vote is because you and your people can't find your
    way down to get one, that there are restrictions somehow. The
    notion is absolutely asinine and ridiculous.
        So, I would say, absolutely, unequivocally not. There is no
    rampant discrimination against voters. There is none. There
    is--it doesn't exist. I mean, in some corners it might exist,
    sure, in some far-off place, and maybe once or twice somewhere
    somebody might get in someone's mind. A systematic effort to
    suppress the votes of Black people? That is preposterous. It is
    just as preposterous as the notion that as a Black American I
    can't get a free ID to vote.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you for that clarity and
    conviction.
        Let me ask you another question. The Election Clause of the
    Constitution, Federal Constitution, gives State legislatures
    the authority, as you know, to prescribe the times, places, and
    manner of holding elections within their jurisdictions. The
    Constitution, thus, leaves it to the States to administer
    elections within their boundaries.
        Let me ask you, from your perspective as a Lieutenant
    Governor, are States still best situated to determine how to
    run elections, or should we just federalize this whole thing
    and put Congress in charge?
        Mr. Robinson. Absolutely the States should remain in
    charge, because, from my vantage point, we are looking at a
    bill here that is 880 pages--some 880 pages of a partisan,
    unconstitutional power grab.
        The Federal Government--there are a lot of things in here
    that they will argue and say, ``Oh, it is just a--it is just--
    we are just insinuating this.'' We understand how that works
    with the Federal Government. There is an insinuation, and then
    there is a request, and then there is a demand.
        We need to stop it at the insinuation. We need to stop this
    at the insinuation that somehow the people in Washington, DC,
    know better than the people in North Carolina. You do not. We
    will not tolerate it.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Everybody over here is saying
    ``amen.''
        This is some refreshing common sense, isn't it?
        Let me ask you one more question. We only have 40 seconds
    or so. When it comes to voting, do you believe we need to give
    citizens greater responsibility when exercising their right to
    vote?
        Mr. Robinson. Absolutely. Again, I said I am a huge
    proponent of the Second Amendment, but the very first thing
    with the Second amendment is that ID you show when you go to
    buy that firearm. There is something I tell everybody. Before
    you partake of the Second Amendment, you need to take a look in
    the mirror and ask yourself, am I responsible enough to own a
    firearm? If the answer is no, don't buy one.
        When it comes to voting, you have 4 years for President, 6
    years for Senate, and 2 years for House of Representatives. I
    have complete confidence in the people of the United States of
    America and the people of my State that in those 2, 4, or 6
    years they can do due diligence, get that ID, find out where
    they are voting, make a date, and be there on the date. I have
    full and complete confidence in them that they can do that. I
    think the rules should reflect that.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Hallelujah. Thank you for being
    here.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Cohen. Before I recognize Mr. Nadler, I want to correct
    myself. I don't like false--what was said before the Supreme
    Court by the Republican attorney was not that we cannot win
    elections. What he said to Justice Amy Coney Barrett was,
    ``Because these laws disqualifying, say, out-of-precinct
    ballots would put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to
    Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote
    they get through unlawful interpretation of section 2 hurts us.
    It's the difference between winning an election and losing.''
        A remarkable moment for the--pivotal moment for voting
    rights. State Republicans have advanced a spate of laws trying
    to change the law. So, in essence, they said it, but something
    different.
        Mr. Nadler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Lieutenant Governor Robinson--and briefly, because I have a
    lot of questions--how do you justify counting for voting
    purposes a hunting license but not a State-college-issued ID?
        Mr. Robinson. We can argue about those semantics all day
    long, whether or not that hunting license is provided, directed
    by the government, whether or not that hunting ID is given on
    the basis of a person being a resident of the State--
        Chair Nadler. A State college ID, how do you not qualify
    that?
        Mr. Bishop. Your microphone, Governor.
        Mr. Robinson. Oh, I am sorry.
        Mr. Bishop. Yeah.
        Mr. Robinson. My microphone was not on.
        Again, we could argue about the semantics about what type
    of ID should be accepted. That is an open and honest
    conversation that we can have, and I don't mind having that
    conversation.
        From my purview as Lieutenant Governor and if I made the
    decision, it would be a State-issued ID only. That is it.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        Reverend Barber, some of my colleagues would argue that the
    Voting Rights Act's success demonstrates that it is no longer
    needed, that the U.S. has elected an African-American President
    and Vice President, that minority representation in elected
    government has increased substantially, and that the minority
    vote has played decisive roles in elections and have much
    higher turnout rates than when the Voting Rights Act was first
    enacted decades ago.
        What is your response to that argument?
        Rev. Barber. My response is that the facts don't play it
    out. Not the facts that somebody said are the facts without
    them being facts, but under the microscope of the courts and
    the Constitution.
        Remember, in North Carolina, the law was tried under the
    courts. The Supreme Court, a predominantly Republican Supreme
    Court, and a three-panel Federal district court said that what
    they did after the Shelby decision was voter suppression--
    surgical voter suppression and intentional voter suppression.
        This is not hyperbole. This is not about semantics. It is
    not just about photo ID. They attempted to eliminate same-day
    registration, preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds, out-of-
    precinct ballots, the first week of early voting, and
    instituted one of the Nation's most stringent photo ID laws.
        We did not have a conversation about it. The courts looked
    at it under the microscope of the Constitution after the Shelby
    decision and said, ``This is surgical. This is intentional
    racism.'' That is what the court said, and that showed that we
    need preclearance.
        There should be no fear of preclearance. If you are not
    discriminating, you would not be afraid of the preclearance
    portion of the Voting Rights Act.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you, Reverend.
        Secretary Castro, many of the so-called election integrity
    laws that are currently making their way through State
    legislatures are practices that have been shown to suppress
    minority voter turnout, such as restrictions on absentee
    voting, restrictions on early voting, more stringent voter ID
    requirements, or laws that make it easier for officials to
    purge voters from voter registration rolls.
        How do these proposals for so-called election integrity
    laws discriminate against minority voters?
        Mr. Castro. That is a great question, Chair Nadler.
        They work all together. It is not just about a photo ID
    requirement. It is much more than that. They work all together
    to have a disparate impact on people of color, whether we are
    talking about my home State of Texas or a number of other
    States.
        Today, in the Texas legislature, for instance, we have
    House Bill 6 and Senate Bill 7 that, among other things, limit
    the hours of early voting. They prohibit drive-through voting,
    which Harris County, as Representative Jackson Lee knows well,
    instituted recently. They take other steps like further
    criminalizing what can even be innocuous activities of helping
    somebody, assisting somebody to early-vote. They allocate a new
    formula for--they establish a new formula for allocating how
    voting centers in counties with a population over 1 million
    people are supposed to be distributed according to State
    legislative districts.
        So, this is an entire ecosystem of discrimination that goes
    into shaving, essentially, off the ability of somebody to
    conveniently access the ballot.
        This is clear, that in Texas, from closing 750 polling
    locations since 2012, to seeing--I believe now we are 47th in--
    43rd or 47th in voter turnout. The proof is in the pudding.
    They have accomplished what they have wanted to accomplish.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        My time has expired.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Thank you.
        I now recognize Mr. Jim Jordan, the Ranking Member of the
    Full Committee.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Lieutenant Governor Robinson, I want to thank you for your
    service to your State and for your powerful testimony. We
    appreciate all that you do.
        I want to yield to your fellow member here from your great
    State of North Carolina, Mr. Bishop.
        Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
        Lieutenant Governor Robinson, Democrats have characterized
    State laws adopting photo ID, like Georgia--which really
    liberalized just about everything about its voting system
    except to require consistent use of voter ID recently--and
    Democrats have characterized that as Jim Crow 2.0.
        Mr. Robinson. Right.
        Mr. Bishop. You just heard the Chair a moment ago attempt
    to draw an equivalence between the old ``beans in a jar, guess
    how many there are'' as a means of depriving Blacks of the
    right to vote in Jim Crow as the same thing as voter ID.
        Mr. Robinson. Right.
        Mr. Bishop. What do you make of that?
        Mr. Robinson. Again, I am not a--I don't understand the
    logic.
        A lot of folks are saying that this is not just about voter
    ID. Let's go ahead and cut down to brass tacks. Yes, it is.
    Yes, it is. It is about voter ID, because we understand that
    voter ID is that first line of defense in maintaining election
    integrity.
        It is the same way if someone came in here and said, ``Hey,
    let's get rid of the ID requirement to buy firearms.'' Boy,
    this place would go crazy, because we would know that would be
    ridiculous. So, it is about that. It is about the voter ID
    laws.
        That notion that this is somehow Jim Crow, I think some
    folks need a history lesson about what happened during Jim
    Crow. During Jim Crow, it wasn't just a poll tax. It wasn't
    just a jar of beans, guess how many jars of beans in it. If you
    stepped outside the line during Jim Crow, you would find
    yourself swinging from a tree or buried somewhere behind
    somebody's barn or all cut up or burned out of your house.
        Requiring an ID to vote is just simple American
    responsibility. In our State, I call it commonsense legislation
    for the common good. It keeps us all honest. To say that
    somehow poor people, Black people can't be involved in that
    responsibility, again, is insulting. It is insulting.
        So, I completely agree with you that it is not the same
    thing, not even close, not even on the same scale. It is not
    even in the same arena.
        Mr. Bishop. Lieutenant Governor Robinson, in North
    Carolina, in 2018, the voters of North Carolina amended our
    State constitution by a fairly overwhelming vote to require
    photo ID. Since that time, an enabling law passed by the
    General Assembly which goes well beyond, sir, what you said you
    would consider to be valid ID.
        Mr. Robinson. Absolutely.
        Mr. Bishop. It includes student IDs.
        Mr. Robinson. Absolutely.
        Mr. Bishop. It even has been amended to include the ID that
    someone holds if they receive public assistance--are all
    allowed.
        Mr. Robinson. Absolutely.
        Mr. Bishop. Judges have delayed the effectiveness of that
    law on the grounds that it is racist. What do you say to that,
    sir?
        Mr. Robinson. I would say to that it is a perfect example
    of what is going on here today. We have a few elitists who
    believe that they know better than the people of the State of
    North Carolina. A few people, two or three judges, that said, I
    know that 55-60 percent of the people of North Carolina said
    they want voter ID, but I don't think so, and I am a king, and
    I know better than you, so I am going to strike that law down.
        That is the same thing we see going on in this chamber
    right now. That is the same thing we see with H.R. 1. Folks who
    sit high, look low, say, I know better than you, I know your
    State better than you, I know your people better than you, I am
    going to make the decisions for you.
        Again, not going to happen. Not going to happen. That old
    saying, ``Not going to happen, Captain,'' it is alive and well
    in North Carolina. It is not going to happen.
        Mr. Bishop. Lieutenant Governor Robinson, Reverend Barber
    says in North Carolina there has been a continuous since 2010--
    the worst voter-suppression campaign laws have been passed and
    implemented.
        Sir, how did you become the first Black Lieutenant Governor
    elected in this past election if the people of North Carolina,
    through their elected representatives, are working to suppress
    voters of African-Americans?
        Mr. Robinson. It is not about voter suppression. I am going
    to tell you what my campaign was about. My campaign was about
    suppressing the lies from the left. That is what it was about.
    When I told the people of North Carolina the truth, they heard
    it, and they came running, and they pushed my name. Not just
    White people, but all people that believe in our message.
        Again, I am going to reiterate this statement one more
    time: What is going on in this room right now is all about this
    right here and the power grab that it ensues.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
        Yield back.
        Mr. Cohen. I believe Ms. Ross would be next, because Mr.
    Raskin is on the floor voting.
        Ms. Ross, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Ross. Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        Since I have served in the General Assembly during some of
    the time of some of these voter suppression laws, it is
    justdeja vu all over again.
        I have been working on voting rights issues for decades. I
    led redistricting cases as a civil rights attorney. I chaired
    the Elections Committee in the North Carolina General Assembly.
    I joined with Reverend Barber in leading the successful effort
    to institute same-day voter registration and early-voting sites
    in the State.
        Given this experience, I want to begin by correcting a
    misunderstanding that Members of both parties have, and that is
    that expanding voting rights only helps Democrats at the ballot
    box. We have to look no farther than our Lieutenant Governor
    here, who won with expanded voting rights in North Carolina, to
    see that North Carolina, a very purple State, elects people of
    both parties when we expand voting rights.
        In 2020, because the courts allowed our laws to stay in
    place and struck down voter suppression, North Carolina offered
    the longest voting period in the country. The State board of
    elections mailed absentee ballots to voters 60 days before the
    November 3 election, earlier than any other State; in-person
    early voting was open for 19 days prior to the election; and
    same-day registration was allowed at all early-voting
    locations, despite the efforts of the General Assembly to shut
    this down.
        Because of this ease, 75 percent of voters in North
    Carolina cast ballots, the vast majority of whom voted prior to
    election day, in large part because of the coronavirus
    pandemic.
        Because of, not despite, this ease and access, Donald
    Trump, our Lieutenant Governor, and a collection of Republican
    judges secured statewide victory in the State, along with
    Members of the Council of State. North Carolina's experience
    proves that Republicans can and do win with an expanded
    electorate if they focus on generating enthusiasm and not
    blocking access to the ballot box.
        American voters are a lot smarter than many politicians
    believe. When candidates run on their records and policies
    rather than relying on antidemocratic efforts to shrink the
    electorate, they can win big, regardless of party affiliation.
    We made that argument when we got same-day voter registration
    at early-voting sites.
        So, I have a question for Dr. Barber, not about these
    voting laws, but about the redistricting process that we are
    about to see all over the country, again, without having the
    protections of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
        So, the Census is coming in late, and we are going to have
    to have an abbreviated period for doing redistricting. North
    Carolina, as we know, has a history of going to the Supreme
    Court over and over again.
        Tell me what you think will happen without section 5 of the
    Voting Rights Act in North Carolina under this abbreviated
    period.
        Rev. Barber. What will happen is what happened before, in
    2010, where we had racialized voter suppression. That was even
    with section 5. Now, certainly, with section 5 gone, we have
    seen all evidence that there will be further attempt to use the
    redistricting period as another way of voter suppression and
    another way of disenfranchisement.
        Again, the courts have ruled--and I know my colleague from
    North Carolina keeps wanting to say it is just hyperbole, but
    the courts have ruled, the Supreme Court ruled, that our
    gerrymandering was racialized gerrymandering. Then another
    court said it allowed an unconstitutionally constituted
    legislature.
        Let me say, Representative Ross, just because African
    Americans get elected does not mean there is not discrimination
    going on, because that is why you examine it under the court--
    not just what people say, but under the court. Fact of the
    matter is, the courts have said time and time again--even after
    the ending of Shelby, it has said that North Carolina has
    engaged in intentional and surgical racism.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Congresswoman Ross.
        I now recognize Mr. Roy from Texas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
        Look, I am always interested when we talk about this
    subject that people just sort of gloss over the history, and
    they start throwing negative commentary towards the Shelby
    County decision.
        I know there are a number of Members in this room who were
    here for the debate in 2006 leading up to the reauthorization
    of Voting Rights Act at that time. I, too, was here, as a
    Staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee. So, I lived it. I
    lived through and read through all those volumes of papers and
    went through all the analysis.
        The fact is, as we put into the record in the additional
    views in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the fact is, the
    formula that was being followed was an outdated formula that
    was 40 years old. It was being based on data from 1965, 1968,
    1972, and it was not updated for the time in 2006 when this was
    passed. That is clearly what the Court said.
        Yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to
    suggest that somehow this is all about perpetuating racism, it
    is about perpetuating the harms that clearly existed--as the
    distinguished gentleman from North Carolina made very clear in
    his review of the history of what the Jim Crow South actually
    looked like.
        Listening now to my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle--and I saw this happen and unfold in the Senate Judiciary
    Committee, where my friend Mike Lee was engaging with Senator
    Durbin, talking about Jim Crow 2.0. I was just on the floor of
    the House of Representatives, and we were talking about DC
    statehood, and we are hearing the same thing about Jim Crow
    2.0.
        We are talking about comparing the historic wrongs that
    occurred, that this country worked hard to reform and fix, that
    the Voting Rights Act was so critical in doing in 1965, we are
    seeing that being compared now to passing laws trying to make
    sure our election system can be believed and trusted and that
    voter identification can be used and that mail-in ballots that
    have bipartisan agreement that they have higher rates of fraud,
    that maybe we should do something to ensure that we have trust
    and belief in those mail-in ballots.
        The record, when we put it in at the time, in 2006, it is
    really important for people to note that, when the Voting
    Rights Act was adopted, the average registration rate for Black
    voters in the seven original covered States was only 29.3
    percent. Today--that was 2006--the voter registration rate
    among Blacks, for example, in covered jurisdictions is over 68
    percent, higher than the 62 percent found in noncovered
    jurisdictions.
        There are examples where the counties in Florida, where
    there were covered counties and noncovered counties.
    Interestingly, we noted in the submission, while Florida has
    five counties that are subject to section 5 coverage, none of
    these counties were implicated by the accounts of
    discrimination submitted to the record in 2006. Yet there were
    five noncovered counties in Florida that were pointed out in
    the list of accounts that was produced in the record in 2006.
        All of this is arbitrary. Everything that is being done is
    arbitrary, and that is why the Court kicked it out. That is the
    fact, and that is what we know.
        Now what do we have? The legislation being put forward now
    for voting rights authorization and expansion counts any change
    to a State's voter ID law as a mark against it. Thirty-six
    States already have voter ID laws. That is what is being done.
    It is very specific; it is very purposeful. That is what is
    actually happening.
        The Voting Rights Act punishes States for improving the
    processes they use to clean up and maintain accurate voting
    rolls. They are making that an actual element. They are trying
    to compare that--making sure that voting rolls, which have
    currently massive numbers of dead people registered, people who
    aren't in the State, people who have moved, where you can't
    have faith in the voting rolls--somehow that is going to be
    made equivalent to the Jim Crow South, for which the Voting
    Rights Act was so important in 1965.
        It undermines the Voting Rights Act to suggest, as Senator
    Durbin did, that if you oppose section 5 preclearance and you
    opposed the absurdity of basing section 5 preclearance on 40-
    year-old data that somehow you are against the Voting Rights
    Act. That is what happens. Those are the political talking
    points.
        I would just ask our witness and Lieutenant Governor from
    North Carolina if you could help me understand. Was the 13th,
    14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution
    passed and moved by Republicans or Democrats?
        Mr. Robinson. That would be Republicans.
        Mr. Roy. Right. Was the movement to--you might put your
    microphone on, sir.
        Mr. Robinson. That would be Republicans.
        Mr. Roy. Was the move for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and
    1965 Voting Rights Act led heavily by Republicans or Democrats?
        Mr. Robinson. That would be Republicans.
        Mr. Roy. So, as we sit here today and as we are being
    accused by many of our colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle of wanting to somehow perpetuate the Jim Crow South,
    when, in fact, what we are trying to do is perpetuate laws that
    you can believe in, that you have so eloquently discussed, do
    you see any merit in that whatsoever.
        Mr. Robinson. Absolutely not.
        If I could have a moment just to add something.
        When you talk about that history, that history is clear who
    stood on which side. At every turn in history, it is clear. It
    is not even in dispute. It is not in dispute now.
        What we want is integrity. We don't want power. We want
    integrity. We want the right thing to be done. We want to
    encourage citizens to be responsible. We want to have the best
    election system in the world. Third-World countries, places
    like India, where the poverty rate is staggering, they have to
    show that finger when they go vote.
        It is time that we modernize our election system in this
    country and stop playing all these silly games based on race.
    Please, stop using me, as a Black man, as your pawn--and, yes,
    I said it--to push your agenda. I am sick of it. It happened a
    long time ago in this country, and I am tired of it.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I would ask that the witness
    answer the question.
        Ms. Ross. His time has expired. His time has expired.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. His time has expired.
        Mr. Roy. Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Cohen. Time has expired.
        Mr. Roy. Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Cohen. I recognize Mr. Hank Johnson for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Roy. Mr. Chair? I just have a unanimous consent request
    to insert something in the record.
        Mr. Cohen. Your 5 minutes has expired.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Unanimous consent to insert
    something in the record.
        Mr. Roy. It is a consent request.
        Mr. Cohen. Five minutes to Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You have already said that we
    could enter that in the record. You said it in your opening,
    Mr. Chair. What changed?
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson, can you hear me.
        Mr. Roy. So, we are not going to insert something in the
    record.
        Mr. Cohen. --you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, Republicans can't enter
    anything in the record? I just need clarification.
        Mr. Roy. So, the Chair doesn't want us to be able to insert
    stuff in the record.
        Mr. Cohen. Maybe in a few minutes but not right now.
        Mr. Roy. Oh, because--okay. Because when I had my time
    closing, I didn't want to insert it at the time, insert it when
    I spoke.
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson, we are going to go in proper order.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Roy. Wow, this is a great way to run a hearing.
    Impressive.
        Mr. Cohen. What is wrong.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I think Mr. Johnson's video is
    frozen.
        Mr. Cohen. Ms. Garcia, can you hear me? I guess you can't.
    Can you hear me?
        Ms. Garcia. Yes, I can.
        Mr. Cohen. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you to all the witnesses who have joined us today.
        [Audio malfunction.]
        Mr. Cohen. Ms. Garcia, we cannot hear you. Is your volume--
    could you turn your volume up?
        Ms. Garcia. Is that better?
        Mr. Cohen. That is better.
        Ms. Garcia. Okay. Wonderful.
        Mr. Cohen. Start the clock over. You are on.
        Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, thank you.
        It is important to note that the Voting Rights Act was
    enacted at a time when many African Americans, Latinos, and
    other minorities in southern States had been denied their right
    to vote. Even when attempting to register, organize, or even
    assist others in their attempt to register to vote, it meant
    risking their jobs, homes, and racial violence.
        Fast-track years later, and it is appalling to know that
    the right to vote remains under constant attack. Last year, the
    American people overwhelmingly and undoubtedly voted to elect
    President Biden and Vice-President Harris and Democrats to lead
    our country. Yet, we witnessed former President Trump's efforts
    and his enablers' attempts to discredit the 2020 election
    results by publicly promoting baseless claims that the vote was
    marred by fraud and irregularities.
        While those who insisted there was election fraud were
    given ample opportunity to put forth competent evidence and
    then trust the American legal system to decide those issues,
    those flaming the fans of election fraud were seriously
    mistaken.
        Even our own Lieutenant Governor in Texas went so far as to
    offer a million dollars--a million dollars--as a reward to
    anyone who would come forward and prove fraud. Well, I am sure
    he still has his million dollars, because no reward was ever
    made.
        These baseless claims were pushed far enough to lead a mob
    to desecrate our U.S. Capitol, threaten Members of Congress
    with their lives, and nearly pushed our country to the brink of
    destruction. This was not about ``stopping the steal.'' It has
    been about stopping the lies that have cost lives.
        Yet, we are witnessing State legislators in 47 States that
    have introduced over 360 bills with restrictive voting
    provisions. I agree with my colleague and friend, Senator
    Castro, that, in our home State of Texas, there is an all-out
    assault on their right to vote.
        I agree with Reverend Barber; these are surgically targeted
    to get at the options for voting and methods of voting that
    work the best in our minority communities. These discriminatory
    bills are not about voter security. They are about voter
    suppression, by preserving partisan political advantage by
    burdening minority communities.
        Let me just say to those who think that it is really simple
    to just go out there and get the voter ID as someone who is the
    eighth of 10 children, born in my own aunt's house, not by a
    doctor but delivered by a midwife I really don't have a birth
    certificate. I have a baptismal certificate, because, being
    Catholic, they did take me over to get baptized.
        So, there are many people still like me, particularly older
    Americans, in many rural parts of our States, areas around the
    country that can't produce an ID.
        I can tell you, I have been through questions when I vote,
    that, even as a State Senator, they would not accept my Senate
    ID because I had forgotten my driver's license. I had to remind
    them that, as a State Senator, one of the qualifications is
    that you are born in the State of Texas, that you are a certain
    age, that, obviously, if I could stand for election, I could
    vote.
        There are things that are still happening on the ground,
    and we must put them to a stop.
        So, my question first goes to Secretary Castro.
        Secretary Castro, could you tell me why section 5 of the
    Voting Rights Act and the preclearance provisions are just so
    important in States like Texas to stop some of the shenanigans
    that are going on around the State and that are being
    considered? Right now, as you and I sit here, our legislature
    is enacting even more restrictive provisions. Can you tell me
    why the VRA is just so important?
        Mr. Castro. Yes. Thank you for your leadership on this,
    Representative Garcia.
        Texas has a very strong, clear, consistent pattern of
    enacting laws that disenfranchise particularly voters of color.
    Before the Voting Rights Act came along, after the Voting
    Rights Act came along, and then after the Shelby County
    decision in 2013, just since that time, Texas has taken a
    number of steps--and some of which I have mentioned: Closing
    750 polling locations that tended to be in areas where there
    are concentrations of Black and Brown voters; requiring photo
    ID. When they did that, right away, there were 600,000 Texans
    who were registered to vote that did not have the requisite ID.
    They were disproportionately Black and Brown.
        On top of that, HB6 and SB7, today, that would absolutely
    have a negative impact on the ability of voters, particularly
    Black and Brown voters, to cast a ballot.
        One of the things I haven't mentioned, but let me just give
    you another example, because this really is about far more than
    voter ID. If it were only about voter ID, that would be all
    that is in the legislation that is being proposed in Texas,
    North Carolina, or Georgia. It is way beyond that. We can tell
    that.
        Harris County, in the last election, allowed for voting
    overnight for shift workers. It doesn't matter whether they are
    Democrat, Republican, or independent, who they are, but shift
    workers to be able to vote, if they had to, at 1:00 a.m., 4:00
    a.m. It was wildly successful. This legislation in Texas would
    strip the ability of Harris County to do that.
        Now, what does it matter whether somebody, if they go
    through the same procedures, if they are eligible to vote,
    votes at 2:00 a.m. in the morning because that is when they can
    most conveniently do it because they have a job that requires
    that they do it at that time? What does it matter if they do it
    at 2:00 a.m. or they do it at 10:00 a.m. in the morning? It
    doesn't. This is part of a consistent pattern Texas has shown
    to disenfranchise Black and Brown voters.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Thank you, Ms. Garcia.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Cohen. I now recognize Mr. Roy for the purpose of
    introducing a unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Roy. Yeah, Mr. Chair, thank you.
        I would ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
    additional views of Senators John Cornyn and Tom Coburn from
    2006 from the Committee report from the Senate Judiciary
    Committee.
        Mr. Cohen. Without objection, shall be done.
        [The information follows:]

                             MR. ROY FOR THE RECORD

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

        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Owens--
        Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair?
        Mr. Cohen. Yes, ma'am?
        Ms. Garcia. Could I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
    record an article from the Houston Chronicle on ``Texas Voting
    Bills Target Democratic Strongholds, Just Like Georgia's New
    Laws,'' for the record.
        Mr. Cohen. Without objection, that will be done as well.
    Thank you, Ms. Garcia.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
        [The information follows:]

                           MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Owens, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Owens. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Ranking
    Member.
        The soft bigotry of low expectations of the 1990s has now
    evolved in 2021 to hardcore racism. We now have elected
    officials, Black and White, who have no shame, that will State
    that being Black--if you are Black and poor, you are incapable
    of doing what every other American does to function and
    progress. Simply, if you are Black and poor, progress, success,
    travel, education, a bank account, visiting this body is not
    for you.
        Lieutenant Governor Robinson, today's Democratic Party
    wants us to believe that your mother's journey from poverty to
    a son now sitting as a national leader is impossible. They want
    us to believe that my grandfather's journey from poverty to his
    son in 1950 getting a Ph.D. is impossible.
        Hardcore racism is very simply this. It seems that the
    Democratic Party thinks it is impossible for poor and Black
    people to get an ID for voting, but it is not even questionable
    to get a welfare check or public assistance. I think the next
    hearing should probably deal with considering welfare IDs as
    Jim Crow.
        Lieutenant Governor Robinson, an Atlanta Journal-
    Constitution poll found that 63 percent of Black respondents
    agreed with requiring voter ID. Why do you think Democrats
    allege that it is so difficult for Black people to get an ID,
    that will suppress their vote?
        Mr. Robinson. As a Republican, I can't speak for Democrats.
        Mr. Bishop. Microphone.
        Mr. Robinson. So, I don't know why they can do that.
        Mr. Bishop. Microphone, Lieutenant Governor. Your mike.
        Mr. Robinson. Sorry. I will repeat my prior statement.
        As a Republican, I can't speak for how Democrats think, so
    I can't actually answer that question.
        I can tell you this. For me, what it all boils down to is
    responsibility. You mentioned something that people often say,
    the soft bigotry of low expectation. I no longer call that soft
    bigotry. I call that the hard bigotry of low expectation.
        I will go back to my mom. You referred to folks in your
    past. The way I saw my mom succeed was to be responsible. My
    mom did not wait on the Federal Government to feed her
    children. My mom had a fifth-grade education. When my father
    died, she had never worked outside the house. She got a job as
    a custodian to take care of her children.
        I look at my own life. The more responsible I became as a
    young man, the more successful I became as a young man.
        So, I would say this: I can't say how anyone else thinks,
    but certainly for myself and my party, I believe we all believe
    it is about responsibility.
        Ultimately, responsibility drives freedom. Responsibility
    drives excellence. I believe, when you talk about voter
    integrity, when you talk about our voting laws and our voting
    system, responsibility will drive us towards a perfect or
    nearly perfect voting system, where any question of fraud can
    be purged and whoever wins, wins fairly.
        Mr. Owens. Lieutenant Governor Robinson, thank you for your
    life, your message. It is a message that all Americans need to
    hear, particularly our race at this particular time. So, thank
    you so much for that.
        I want to yield my remaining time to the gentleman from
    North Carolina.
        Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman.
        Lieutenant Governor Robinson, in your comments, you
    mentioned that, in Vice-President Harris's visit to North
    Carolina just this past week, she visited the Greensboro
    location of the Woolworth's lunch counter, famous site of the
    desegregation conflict.
        Mr. Robinson. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. Our mutual friend, Clarence Henderson, was
    omitted--even though he was local, he was omitted from that
    event.
        Mr. Robinson. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. I want to ask you about yourself. We hear that
    this is a lot, about Democrats are solicitous of the
    opportunities for people of color and Republicans are not,
    which I think you stand as repudiation of just by your office
    and what you are doing these days.
        Has the Governor of North Carolina, the Democrat Governor,
    Roy Cooper, reached out to you to celebrate your election, your
    unprecedented election, and integrate you into his
    Administration?
        Mr. Robinson. Only once. Me and the Governor are
    diametrically opposed politically, but I can tell you this. I
    made this plain. Just as in the case with Mr. Henderson and the
    Vice President, I think those are perfect times when we can
    take a step back and realize our common interests as Americans.
        Certainly, at that moment, I think that would have been a
    unifying message, to have this Republican Black man who
    actually sat at the lunch counter there with the Democratic
    Vice President, a woman of color, who is the first woman Vice
    President. It would have been a unifying moment for the
    country. The country could have seen that, despite our
    political differences, we can set those political differences
    aside to highlight the best of us. What we would have seen
    there would have been the best of us.
        The same way is true in North Carolina. I desperately want
    to work with our Governor in North Carolina. I want to sit down
    in his office. I want to share my ideas; I want him to share
    his ideas. I want us to highlight the best of us, not the worst
    of us. Oftentimes that is very difficult. In our case, it turns
    out that the opposite has happened.
        Mr. Bishop. Yield back.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Owens.
        Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
    holding this hearing.
        Voters should not have to jump through hoops or traverse a
    cynically complicated obstacle course just to vote. The right
    to vote is not a privilege; voting is a fundamental right. The
    Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to enable Black people in
    America to exercise that fundamental right that had been
    historically denied to us by States like Texas, North Carolina,
    and, of course, Georgia.
        In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the preclearance
    provision of the VRA. Having been freed from the restrictions
    of section 5, those same jurisdictions that had historically
    denied the right to vote to Black Americans immediately sprang
    into action into resuming their sordid history of passing laws
    to suppress the right to vote.
        Georgia legislators used Donald Trump's ``big lie'' as
    their justification for passing Senate Bill 202, but the
    American people know that it was just a pretext and another big
    lie.
        When over half the States in the Union are hell-bent on
    developing more ingenious ways to suppress the minority vote,
    while the other half are endeavoring to make voting easier for
    all, we find ourselves with a democracy that is simultaneously
    becoming more backward and undemocratic and more progressive.
    To quote Abraham Lincoln, ``Our democracy cannot continue half-
    slave and half-free.'' The stark contrast between the active
    voter suppression going on in States, including the State of
    Georgia, with the automatic voting in States like Oregon
    illustrates that principle.
        It is time that we, as the people's House, rise to this
    threat to our democracy and pass the John Lewis Voting Rights
    Advancement Act, which will be reintroduced soon by our
    colleague, the gentlelady from Alabama, Congresswoman Terri
    Sewell. Congress must make clear once and for all that voting
    is a right that must be protected at all costs.
        At the time of the Shelby County decision, the entire State
    of Georgia was subject to the section 5 preclearance regime of
    the Voting Rights Act. After that decision, Georgia kicked its
    goal of suppressing Black voters into high gear.
        This year, Georgia enacted the latest round of Jim Crow
    2.0, an assault on voting rights, some of the most restrictive
    in the country.
        A Gwinnett County Republican official, a county partly
    within my district in Georgia, was quoted earlier this year as
    saying that he wants laws that limit no-excuse absentee voting,
    quote, ``so we at least have a shot at winning,'' end quote.
        Reverend Barber, given your extensive experience with civil
    rights, educate us as to why these changes to voting in Georgia
    would specifically help Republicans in the State?
        Rev. Barber. Well, whether in Georgia, Arizona, or North
    Carolina, what we know, when these kinds of laws are examined,
    is that they not only hurt Black people, Brown people, and
    indigenous people, but they also hurt poor White people.
        One of the ways we know this is because, for instance, in
    North Carolina, Representative Johnson, this is what the
    General Assembly did and probably what they did in Georgia.
    They asked for all the data on how early voting, same-day
    registration, 16-, 17-year-old voting, so forth and so on,
    impacted Black voters, and then they made their decision on
    which parts of the law they would create or would erase based
    on that data. That is why the Court said that it was surgical
    racism. It was not just happenstance.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, Pastor Barber, I know that
    the State of Georgia looked critically at the ways in which
    voter turnout was accomplished and then endeavored to restrict
    those ways to suppress those who voted because of those
    tactics.
        Rev. Barber. Exactly.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, Lieutenant Governor Robinson,
    you said that in America there is no longer an effort to
    suppress the votes of Black people. When did we get to that
    point?
        Mr. Robinson. I am sorry. You were asking me that question?
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes. You are--
        Mr. Robinson. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yeah. When did we get to that
    point? You--
        Mr. Robinson. I can't put my finger exactly on when that
    happened, but I know that it is not happening now.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right.
        You know that it is no longer happening now.
        Would you agree that there was a need for the 1965 Voting
    Rights Act?
        Mr. Robinson. Absolutely. Democrats made that possible with
    their institution of Jim Crow.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, your argument, is that sometime
    between 1965 and today that voter suppression went away?
        Mr. Robinson. Yes, because--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Is that what you are telling me.
        Mr. Robinson. Because great progress has been made in this
    country amongst our Black people and that is obvious.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right.
        Okay. Well, thank you, sir. Thank you.
        Ms. De Leon, Senate Bill 202, signed into law by Georgia's
    Republican Governor, Brian Kemp, last month--
        Mr. Cohen. Hank, we are over time, I am afraid.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. All right. I yield back.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't realize that.
        Mr. Cohen. Do we have voting starting?
        We will try to keep going. We have 30 minutes for the vote.
        The next person--who on the Republican side who is next?
    Everyone has done their questioning?
        All right. The next is--Mr. Raskin, are you ready?
        Mr. Raskin. Yes, I am.
        Mr. Cohen. You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Okay. Then forgive me; we have been debating DC
    statehood on the floor. It is a great moment for America when
    we get to extend voting rights and self-representation to
    712,000 taxpaying, draftable U.S. citizens.
        So, those people who are here on both sides of the aisle
    who are championing voting rights should presumably be out
    there organizing for DC statehood. Unfortunately, we are not
    getting any support from across the aisle today on that.
        Mr. Chair, thank you for calling the hearing.
        I did catch the distinguished Lieutenant Governor of North
    Carolina speaking very strongly on behalf of the driver's
    license and the photo ID for voting. He said that the reason
    that he supported it is because it works--even as a champion of
    the Second Amendment, he said it works for the purchase of
    firearms.
        So, I just want to make sure I have his argument right.
        Do you support the use of photo ID for all voters in all
    circumstances? Then do you support the use of photo ID,
    driver's licenses, for all firearm purchases?
        Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir, in both, I do.
        Mr. Raskin. Okay. So, you would support H.R. 8, the
    Universal Violent Criminal Voter--rather, firearm purchase law,
    which is being opposed by Republicans in Congress? I just want
    to make sure you are on our side on that.
        Mr. Robinson. Love this--love the bait-and-switch thing
    here. Love it. It is great. Fantastic.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, where I am--
        Mr. Robinson. You are leaving out a myriad of things that
    that bill covers, sir, so we are not even going to discuss
    that, because you are leaving out a myriad of things. I am
    talking about a commonsense issue of making sure we don't sell
    guns to people who have been adjudicated legally.
        Mr. Raskin. Excuse me--
        Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Robinson. We are not talking about a bill.
        Mr. Cohen. The Congressman has the time.
        Mr. Raskin. Reclaiming my time.
        The Lieutenant Governor said that he supported the use of
    photo ID for all firearm purchases. That is precisely the
    purpose of H.R. 8, which says we will close the internet
    loophole, we will close the private gun show loophole, and we
    will close the private gun sale loophole.
        I just want to make sure he is being consistent in his
    argument. He wants it--for everybody trying to vote and
    everybody trying to get a firearm, he wants a photo ID to be
    used, correct?
        Mr. Robinson. I believe that all FFLs should have--should
    require--all FFLs should require an ID when people are coming
    in to purchase a firearm.
        Mr. Raskin. No, no. All firearm purchases.
        You support--I think the logic of your argument is that we
    should have universal use of photo ID for the purchase of
    firearms. At least, you based your entire argument about why we
    should do voting that way on firearms. So, I just wanted to
    make sure that is your position.
        Reverend Barber, let me come to you, if I could. Can you
    explain why voting is the heart of the American political creed
    in a way--we understand it is the right preservative of all
    other rights. If you don't have the right to vote, you can't
    defend yourself in other ways. Yet, at the same time, there has
    been a constant undertow of efforts to deny people their voting
    rights, with grandfather clauses; literacy tests; poll taxes;
    making people wait in line for 6 hours, 8 hours; rolling back
    early voting; rolling back weekend voting.
        Why do we have this constant struggle in our country? It
    doesn't exist in a lot of democratic countries where it is a
    universal commitment to give everybody the right to vote to
    make sure everybody is registered. What is different about
    America?
        Rev. Barber. Well, what is different has been the issue of
    race and the issue of economics. Dr. King said it was the very
    threat of the possibility of Black masses and White masses
    joining together to overcome the White aristocracy that created
    voter suppression and segregation in the first place.
        There have been a lot of distortions that have been put out
    here in this hearing. My grandfather was a Republican, but he
    was a Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt Republican. He was not a Strom
    Thurmond Republican.
        What we have seen is that, ever since the Southern
    Strategy, the Strom Thurmond-type Republicans, Jesse Helms-type
    Republicans decided that, particularly in the South, they were
    going to use that strategy and use ways of implementing voter
    suppression.
        Whether you call it Jim Crow 2 or Jane Crow or Jane Crow,
    Esquire, it is always an attempt to Act benign, to Act like it
    does not undermine the right to vote, but, in fact, it does--
        Mr. Raskin. Okay--
        Rev. Barber. --for Black, Brown, and then it disables our
    ability to change the political system and the economic system
    in this country for the good of all people.
        Mr. Raskin. So, I have one final question I want to ask
    you, if I could?
        There are more than 350 bills now around the country trying
    to roll back people's voting rights and restrict their voting
    rights in America today. Explain how a new Voting Rights Act,
    an updated Voting Rights Act, would protect people against
    their right to vote being impinged on in this--
        Rev. Barber. We need those bills to have to be precleared.
    The Republicans should not fear them being precleared and
    examined before they are implemented and before they are used
    in suppressive ways.
        Preclear all these decisions under the Voting Rights Act.
    Judge them by the 14th amendment and the 15th Amendment. If
    they pass that, let them go into law.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Reverend Barber.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
        Mr. Cohen. We only have a few minutes, and we have to vote.
    We are going to recognize Ms. Bush for 5 minutes, and then we
    are going to recognize Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes, and then
    we will wrap up and run and vote.
        Ms. Bush, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Bush. St. Louis, and I thank you, Chair Cohen, for
    convening this crucial hearing.
        Our right to vote--and I know it has been said before, but
    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, our hopes, and
    our aspirations as a country and as a society. I know because I
    am one of those people.
        I would be remiss not to start today's remarks by taking
    stock of the fact that the Voting Rights Act came into fruition
    because of the tireless work of civil rights champions, the
    thousands of protesters who took to the streets, and the many
    Black men and Black women who showed up and spoke out. They
    were bloodied and beaten and brutalized in the movement to
    protect and affirm our sacred right to vote. In 1965, they rose
    up to demand a say in our democracy. In 2021, we are still
    rising up, demanding that our voices be heard.
        In the aftermath of the Shelby decision, in my home State
    of Missouri, Republicans have passed unnecessary and
    restrictive voter ID laws and a notary requirement to deny
    Black people and Brown people and people living in poverty
    access to the ballot box.
        We have seen polling places in our communities close, which
    happened all over the place--we have seen it--and roadblocks
    put up to prevent currently and formerly incarcerated people
    from reclaiming their rights.
        We continue to fight. In 2020, we turned out in record
    numbers, despite the unprecedented obstacles put in place by a
    White supremacist system. Black and Brown voters, organizers
    delivered victories up and down the ballot. We know this.
        With this Democratic majority, though, we now have the
    power to level the playing field by striking down racist laws
    that seek only to continue the history of disenfranchisement of
    Black, Brown, and indigenous people.
        So, I want to ask Reverend Barber--good afternoon, and so
    good to have this moment with you. You have been active in the
    fight for civil--with the civil rights movement for decades.
    How have discriminatory voting practices evolved to be less
    overtly racially discriminatory since the 1960s?
        Rev. Barber. Well, I think what they do is they don't
    actually say, ``We are doing this because it is racist,'' so
    you have to investigate the data. You have to look at the kind
    of requests they make for data and then how they make those
    decisions about what laws they are going to put in place based
    on that data.
        That is what happened in North Carolina. They asked how
    these new voting laws would help Black people, such as same-day
    registration and early voting, and then those are the things
    they went after.
        What they are afraid of is not just Black voters. It is the
    Black-White-Brown-Asian-indigenous coalition. Fifty-five
    percent of poor and low-wealth people voted in this past
    election for the current President that we have. It is that
    fusion coalition.
        They know, lastly, that it only has to be surgical, and
    many times it only has to be a cutting or suppressing 1 or 2
    percent of the vote to be fundamental change in who gets
    elected.
        Ms. Bush. Thank you for teaching, Reverend Barber.
        Secretary Castro, many of these so-called election
    integrity laws that are currently making their way through
    State legislatures are measured--they have been shown to
    suppress minority turnout.
        How do we make sure that States like Missouri, which were
    not part of the preclearance States previously, are still held
    accountable for their voter discrimination?
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Representative Bush. Thank you for
    your leadership on these issues.
        I think that is why this legislation is so fundamentally
    important going forward, because it helps ensure that these
    kind of discriminatory voting measures are not put in place.
        By updating what used to be section 4(b), essentially
    States that would be subject to preclearance, by updating that,
    it allows for the inclusion of places that may not have been
    covered before but may be covered now because of a pattern of
    discriminatory practices since the Shelby County decision and
    then going forward.
        This legislation is one of the best ways that we can ensure
    that everybody in our country, regardless of the color of their
    skin or their background, who is eligible to vote has
    convenient access to the franchise.
        Ms. Bush. Thank you, Secretary Castro.
        I will close with this. In the words of the late
    Congressman John Lewis, when you see something that is not
    right, not fair, not just, and you have to speak up, you have
    to say something, you have to do something. Today, we honor his
    legacy by doing just that.
        Thank you for answering my questions.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Bush.
        We now recognize for 5 minutes Representative Sheila
    Jackson Lee of the great State of Texas.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
        The historic record should be clarified that President
    Lyndon Baines Johnson initiated the Voting Rights Act of 1965
    after the brutal killing of the four little girls and the
    Selma-to-Montgomery March and the brutalizing of John Robert
    Lewis. We are delighted that moderate Republicans joined in
    that vote. Subsequently, however, I am reminded of the fact
    that President Johnson said, ``We have lost the South.'' Of
    course, the South began to turn Republican. Those were the
    oppressors, putting on a different party affiliation.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me--General, I understand in 2020,
    former President Trump won North Carolina. Do you believe that
    was a legitimate election? Yes or no.
        Mr. Robinson. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chair, I would like to offer into the record the
    article that says, here are the Republicans who objected to the
    electoral college vote in 2020. There were one, two, three,
    four, five of our Members here who are now talking about the
    issue of voting.
        I would like to submit this into the record, and I will
    make the point later.
        Mr. Cohen. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

                         MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

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

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. Let me go quickly
    to Ms. De Leon, and my time is very short. Make your answers
    very short. I respect you. Since the Shelby County decision,
    some have floated the notion that there is no problem with
    enforcement of the Voting Rights Act as it stands, because
    there are still adequate remedies under the statute to continue
    strong voting rights enforcement.
        What is your response? Ms. De Leon.
        Ms. De Leon. Thank you so much. Yes, thank you so much for
    that question. The Voting Rights Act is key and the
    preclearance is key because there is still intentional
    discrimination. I believe there has been some confusion and I
    would like to clear it up today.
        Civil rights advocates are not against photo ID. We are
    against manipulating photo ID to cut voters out. In North
    Dakota immediately after Native voters flexed their political
    power and influenced a race for U.S. Senate, the State
    legislature restricted the types of photo ID and required photo
    ID with an address on it when they knew there were Native
    Americans in North Dakota that do not have addresses on their
    home, which, by the way, is a whole other injustice. We took
    that case to court, and the Republican-appointed Federal judge
    agreed the law was unconstitutional and violated the 14th
    Amendment.
        The State legislature then passed the law, again, in
    defiance of the court, and that is intentional discrimination
    happening today, and that case was not resolved until last
    year.
        Respectfully, no amount of personal responsibility will put
    an address on a home. When it is suggested--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        Ms. De Leon. --is accessible that shows an ignorance of the
    reality on the ground facing Native Americans. Thank you.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you for representing
    Native Americans. Let me, Lieutenant Governor Robinson, let me
    correct that.
        Mr. Owens. Will the lady yield.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me also thank you for your service.
        Mr. Owens. Will the lady yield.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Reverend Barber, I have a short period of
    time. We have been hearing all throughout this session that
    race does not matter. Would you briefly--I have to ask
    Secretary Castro a question, please, would you briefly
    categorize how a race has seen a proliferation of oppressive
    voting rights laws, even though, as you said, if we all work
    together, we can get equality? How does race, racism impact all
    these voting rights laws being written by Republican
    legislatures across America.
        Rev. Barber. Systemic racism, policy-based racism does
    matter. It matters because it is the violation of the 15th
    Amendment, 14th Amendment. Let me just read the Supreme Court
    in answer to your question about the gerrymandering case in
    North Carolina.
        The U.S. Supreme Court issued a remarkable per curiam
    decision striking down as a sweeping unconstitutional racial
    gerrymandering, the maps that created an unaccountable
    legislative super majority in the State House, therefore,
    creating an unconstitutionally constituted legislature.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Reverend. Thank you, Reverend.
    I love you and thank you for your service. They are cutting me
    off. Thank you so very much. That is powerful what you said.
        Secretary Castro, thank you for your mother's work. My
    predecessor, who endorsed me, the Honorable Barbara Jordan, was
    able to get Hispanics included in the language of the 1965
    Voting Rights Act when she came to Congress. I subsequently was
    here for the historic reauthorization.
        What impact did that making sure that Texas was included,
    and Hispanics were actually included in the empowerment of
    Hispanic voters, which are racial definition in many instances,
    what did it do for this State.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you so much. Thank you for the question,
    Representative Jackson Lee and for your leadership. That 1975
    extension to language minorities was groundbreaking. What it
    meant was much greater participation, particularly in the
    Mexican American community, Latino community, there in Texas,
    greater election, the first-choice candidates from those
    communities that changed the face of governance across the
    State of Texas and in many other places, it empowered millions
    of people.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. There is not enough time, Mr.
    Chair, I just want to finish this one sentence, just to say:
    This represents all the Republicans who voted against the
    legitimacy of the Biden election, included in it are those who
    challenged Georgia and Fulton County, in particular, which was
    dominated by African-Americans. Someone will, in another
    hearing, Mr. Chair, explain to me why this is not all about
    race. That is what it is about.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee.
        That concludes our hearing today. I want to 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.
        With that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

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