[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, [email protected] 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]