[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VOTER SUPPRESSION AND CONTINUING THREATS TO DEMOCRACY
=======================================================================
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-271 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
AMY RUTKIN, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
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, January 20, 2022
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 Chip Roy, a Member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State
of Texas....................................................... 4
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of New York........................... 7
WITNESSES
Mr. Wade Henderson, Interim President and CEO, The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Testimony...................................................... 12
Ms. Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Testimony...................................................... 26
Mr. Damon T. Hewitt, President and Executive Director, Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Oral Testimony................................................. 59
Testimony...................................................... 62
Mr. Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel, Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Oral Testimony................................................. 87
Testimony...................................................... 89
Ms. Maureen Riordan, Litigation Counsel, Public Interest Legal
Foundation
Oral Testimony................................................. 96
Testimony...................................................... 98
Mr. T. Russell Nobile, Senior Attorney, Judicial Watch, Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 108
Testimony...................................................... 110
Mr. Derrick Johnson, President and CEO, NAACP
Oral Testimony................................................. 129
Testimony...................................................... 131
Ms. Helen Butler, Executive Director, Georgia Coalition for the
Peoples' Agenda
Oral Testimony................................................. 135
Testimony...................................................... 137
Mr. Domingo Garcia, National President, League of United Latin
American Citizens
Oral Testimony................................................. 161
Testimony...................................................... 164
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
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
A document entitled, ``Summary of Most Egregious Aspects of
Texas SB 1''................................................. 182
An article entitled, ``Why Texas election officials are
rejecting hundreds of vote-by-mail applications,'' NPR....... 183
An article entitled, ``Voting rights is a constitutional right:
Failure is not an option,'' The Hill......................... 187
An article entitled, ``New Texas Republican map carves Jackson
Lee district and cuts off Black constituents,'' Washington
Post......................................................... 193
An article entitled, ``Sheila Jackson Lee, Al Green go to
Austin to fight GOP redistricting plan,'' Houston Chronicle.. 197
A press release entitled, ``Mayor Turner's Statement on
VoterRegistration Card Shortage in Texas,'' from the
Honorable Sylvester Turner, Mayor, City of Houston, January
18, 2022..................................................... 199
An article entitled, ``Rep. Jackson Lee: The Senate must
suspend filibuster for bills designed to ensure right to
vote,'' Houston Chronicle.................................... 201
APPENDIX
A statement from Donald K. Sherman, Vice President and Chief
Counsel, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,
submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties from the State of Tennessee, for the record.......... 208
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
An article entitled, ``Texas Secretary of State Office sets
limits on voter registration forms due to supply chain
issues,'' CNN................................................ 212
An article entitled, ``Texas rejecting hundreds of vote-by-mail
applications under restrictive GOP-backed law,'' San Antonio
Current...................................................... 214
An article entitled, ``Texas rejects hundreds of mail ballot
applications under new voting limits,'' Reuters.............. 216
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Member of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties from the State of Maryland, for the record
A statement from FairVote...................................... 219
A report entitled, ``Ranked Choice Voting Elections Benefit
Candidates and Voters of Color,'' FairVote................... 221
VOTER SUPPRESSION AND CONTINUING THREATS TO DEMOCRACY
----------
Thursday, January 20, 2022
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,
and Civil Liberties
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., via
Zoom, Hon. Steve Cohen [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Nadler, Cohen, Raskin,
Ross, Johnson of Georgia, Garcia, Bush, Jackson Lee, McBath,
Jordan, Johnson of Louisiana, and Roy.
Staff present: John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff
Director; Moh Sharma, Director of Member Services and Outreach
& Policy Advisor; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; John Williams,
Parliamentarian and Senior Counsel; Keenan Keller, Senior
Counsel; Gabriel Barnett, Staff Assistant; Merrick Nelson,
Digital Director; Kayla Hamedi, Deputy Communications Director;
James Park, Chief Counsel for Constitution; Will Emmons,
Professional Staff Member/Legislative Aide for Constitution;
Abbie Petty, Counsel for Constitution; Matt Morgan, Counsel for
Constitution; Betsy Ferguson, Minority Senior Counsel; Caroline
Nabity, Minority Counsel; James Lesinski, Minority Counsel;
Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Kiley
Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
Mr. Cohen. Good morning. 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
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
I welcome everyone to today's hearing on voter suppression
and continuing threats to democracy. Before I continue, I'd
like to remind all Members that we have established an email
address that was previously shared and distribution lists
dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, or other written
materials that Members want to offer as part of the hearing
today.
I also ask unanimous consent that our Committee colleague,
Representative Lucy McBath of Georgia, be allowed to
participate in today's hearing and that she is permitted to ask
questions should a Subcommittee Member yield her time.
Without objection, so done.
Finally, I would ask all Members and Witnesses to mute your
microphones when you are not speaking. This will help prevent
feedback and other technical issues. You may unmute yourself
anytime you seek recognition.
I'll now recognize myself for an opening statement. Earlier
this past week, the nation commemorated the birthday of Dr.
Martin Luther King on Saturday, and his national day of honor,
Dr. Martin Luther King Day--which we owe a great debt of
gratitude to our previous Chair, John Conyers, who labored for
that 15 or 16 years to make it become law--on Monday, Dr.
Martin Luther King Day, and it was right as a country that we
do that right and it was right of John Conyers to initiate the
idea and to continue persistently and doggedly to make sure it
happened.
Many public figures and officeholders gave speeches and
statements to honor Dr. King's legacy of leadership, and some
of them went further to talk about what his leadership was
about, to ensure civil rights for all Americans, to make us a
better nation.
To truly honor Dr. King and in the way that I hear in
church so often, to paraphrase, be of Dr. King and not just
about Dr. King. We must defend the most fundamental right that
he fought to secure for Black Americans and other historically
oppressed people--the right to vote.
Yes, he was for the right to organize and have workers
compensated properly and recognize being part of a union, and
he was for healthcare as a basic civil right and for peace and
for equitable treatment of all people.
The right to vote was the fundamental linchpin upon which
it all rested. In his 1957 speech in May of 1957, he said,
``The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the
highest mandates of our democratic tradition. And so our most
urgent request to the President of the United States, every
Member of Congress, is to give us the right to vote. Give us
the ballot and we will no longer have to worry the Federal
government about our basic rights.'' May of 1957, 65 years ago.
Distressingly, those words from 1957 apply today just as
aptly as they did the moment that he made the speech and it
does this moment that we live, as large segments of our
nation's political and governing class appear ready to retreat
from what had been a long-standing bipartisan commitment to
protecting multiracial democracy since the enactment of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
It's impossible to think of the Voting Rights Act without
thinking of our dear colleague, John Lewis, who we all miss
greatly. John Lewis, in the first march from Selma, was beaten
and almost gave his life for the right to vote. Dr. King led
the second march when the government came in and made sure it
was successful rather than unsuccessful.
People went to Selma with Dr.--John Lewis for his
memorializations of the march, his memory of the march, and
people went and were touched and spoke about it, how they went
with John Lewis to Selma, and then some of those same people
voted not to continue the Voting Rights Act that he nearly gave
his life for, that's named for him, the John R. Lewis Voting
Rights Act.
As this Subcommittee has documented exhaustively through 13
hearings over the course of the last three years, voting rights
for Black Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans, Asian
Americans, disabled Americans, and other historically
disadvantaged groups have once again come under significant
threats in many parts of our country.
The extensive record we have built for those hearings show
that many States have adopted laws making absentee voting
harder, reducing opportunities for early voting, and closing
polling locations in predominantly minority precincts, among
other things.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, between
January 1, 2021, and December 7, 2021, more than 440 bills with
provisions that restrict voting access have been introduced in
49 States in the 2021 legislative sessions.
These are the ``most extraordinary,'' numbers that the
Brennan Center has seen in any years since it began tracking
voting legislation in 2011.
Disturbingly, since 2020, we have also seen States changing
their election administrative laws and processes to politicize
the counting of votes already cast. Vladimir Putin has said
it's important--most important--who counts the votes.
In some cases, these measures could allow partisan actors
to interfere with vote counts or even overturn the results.
Beyond these already troubling trends is the fact that this
redistricting cycle was the first one without the Voting Rights
Act preclearance provision in effect. The results were
predictable.
For example, in Georgia, several lawsuits have been filed
challenging the State's new congressional legislative maps,
alleging that they violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
by denying Black voters the equal opportunity to participate in
the political process and to elect their candidates of choice
by diluting the strength of their voters and their votes.
These maps also strip minority elected officials of power
by targeting their districts for elimination. In Tennessee,
Congressman Cooper's district was divided into three different
districts, and instead of being a district with 28 percent
minority impact, it now is a district with 12 percent, and the
remaining 16 percent are scattered through two other
predominately rural precincts where there will be 16 percent
Black vote and 10 percent Black vote.
Notably, people of color accounted for all Georgia's
population growth between 2010-2020, a time when the State's
White population declined.
Yet, its redistricting plans not only failed to capture
this back, but actively sought to remove minority voters from
majority-minority districts and place them in the majority-
White districts. Cracking is what that's called.
In Texas, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to
challenge the State's redistricting plans as violations of
section 212.
Texas created two new majority White congressional
districts, eliminated a Latino opportunity district, and failed
to create a district capturing growth of the Latino electorate
in Harris County, all despite the fact that 95 percent of the
population growth in Texas during 2010-2020 was a result of
growth in this minority population.
We will hear from our Witnesses today about many other
examples of how States besides Georgia, Texas, and Tennessee
have manipulated district lines for Federal, State, and local
offices to deny voters of color equal opportunity to
participate in the political process and elect the candidates
of their choice.
Make no mistake, at this moment our nation's democracy
stands on the precipice. We can talk all we want about the
Founding Fathers, that they're turning over.
We find ourselves in this position not only because of a
procedural anachronism in the Senate, but because one of the
two major political parties has chosen to reverse its historic
support for strong voter rights protection, has instead chosen
voter suppression as a political strategy.
As recently as 2006 Congress was able to reauthorize the
Voting Rights Act by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 98 to
nothing in the Senate--16 of those Senators are still in the
Senate and they didn't vote for the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Act this time--and 390 to 33 in the House, over 10 to one.
President George W. Bush pushed for the law's passage, and
he signed it into law. Now, it appears that many on the other
side of the aisle have come to the cynical conclusion that it
no longer pays politically to protect voting rights. They want
power at all costs.
Process doesn't matter except how it helps them get power.
Indeed, they seem to have come to the conclusion--erroneously,
in my view--that they can only win if they suppress the right
to vote of certain Americans.
This is a tragedy. It's a tragedy for our country that some
of its leaders have embraced the idea in the year 2022 that
true multiracial and multiethnic democracy is a threat to them.
It is, indeed, as Dr. King put it two generations ago, a
tragic betrayal of the highest mandate of our democratic
tradition. We now face an ever-narrowing window to save our
democracy.
We saw that door shut pretty close in the Senate. We're two
votes short of getting an extraordinary process--to allow it to
continue, and 52 short of the unanimity that it saw in 2006.
Let us hope that there's a crack in the door. The light
shines through a crack.
Now, I'd like to recognize for an opening statement the
Ranking Member, and the Ranking Member today is the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Roy, and I recognize Mr. Roy for his opening
statement.
Mr. Roy. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I am, indeed,
substituting for my good friend, Mike Johnson, who has a
conflicting hearing. He is apologetic he can't be here. He's
got at HASC conflict. He'll be joining a little bit later.
We are all here with our own concerns about what we saw
happen last night, and after last night's failure in the
Senate, here we are again.
This will be the seventh hearing that this Subcommittee has
had in nine months on the Democrats' race-baiting election
bills, and that's what these are.
Today's hearing will use State redistricting efforts to
continue to advance the false charge of voter suppression and
threats to democracy. That's what we're going to hear today.
There will be cries that partisan gerrymandering that are
conducted by both parties--that are conducted always by both
parties--that are racial gerrymandering when they're conducted
by the GOP. These cries are all about crass political power
because that's what gerrymandering has always been since its
formation.
We can talk about how to make districts more compact, how
to make districts better represent the people. This is all
about crass political power and using race for that purpose.
That's not really what bothers me because that's what I'm
used to. It's that the cynical use of racial fearmongering
built on lies about bills being passed at the State level.
After last night's failure in the Senate, another attempt--
another failed attempt to defend massive legislation that
Democrats have unilaterally jammed through the House multiple
times now specifically designed to thwart fully legitimate
State reforms that are good faith attempts to ensure ballot and
election integrity.
Yet, they will lie and claim that these good faith attempts
are designed to suppress voting. That's not at all what these
are about.
For example, Speaker Pelosi said about Republicans that
they, quote, ``voted to aid and abet the most dangerous
campaign of voter suppression since Jim Crow.'' This is
outrageous, and it was doubled down by the President last
night, which I'll get to in a minute.
This is a purposeful misinformation campaign by my Democrat
colleagues and by a Democrat in the Administration to lie and
suggest that opposing the following is voter suppression:
Requiring voter identification, ballot harvesting--a practice
that risks third parties having undue influence or control on a
person's voter ballot--limiting mail-in ballots to requested
ballots and requiring IDs to use them, not having, perhaps,
all-night ballot drop options.
That was the charge in Houston in a hearing I was in down
in the Texas legislature. Having fewer early voting days
compared to, say, another State.
That's what's at the basis of all these charges, that these
things are somehow voter suppression. The misinformation
campaign is designed to make Americans believe they are for
protecting voting rights. They use that term on purpose--voting
rights--because who could possibly be against voting rights?
For example, allow me to quote from acclaimed election
history and law experts Jerry West, Nick Saban, Paul Tagliabue,
and company.
In the last year, some 20 States have enacted dozens of laws
that restrict voting access and allow local officials or State
legislatures to interfere inappropriately with Federal election
outcomes.
Motivated by the unanticipated outcomes of recent close
elections conducted with integrity, they say, these State laws
seek to secure partisan advantage by eliminating reliable
practices with proven safeguards and substituting practices
ripe for manipulation. No doubt these famed election law
experts spent the weekend reading the Federal legislation for
which they were lobbying because I got the 700-page bill at
11:30 p.m. last Thursday night before voting on it on Friday,
right before we got the rule.
I assume they read it thoroughly over the weekend as my
staff stayed up into the middle of the night to actually see
what was in the bill.
I assume, too, that they know, for example, that the bill
would lead to completely outlawing or eliminating voter
identification.
Do they know that four in five Americans--80 percent--
support requiring voters to show photo identification to cast a
ballot? I know my colleagues are sure fine with everybody
having to show a voter identification with vax cards across
this country, including the nation's capital.
Do they know that Delaware and Connecticut require photo or
nonphoto ID and more--I'm certain that they have studied the
intricacies of Texas law before disparaging it.
I'm sure they spent time looking at that, or, say, studied
the Georgia election law at least a little better than studying
the University of Georgia's defense.
Do they know that Georgia has 17 days of early voting and
that President Biden's home State of Delaware only has 10 days?
Are we looking at Delaware?
This puts Delaware on par with Texas which, notably, still
has more than Maryland, eight days; Jersey, nine days; New
York, nine days; and Connecticut, zero days. Zero days in that
bastion of wingnuttery, Connecticut. Georgia has no-excuse
absentee voting. Joe Biden's home State of Delaware requires an
excuse for absentee voting.
Now, I'm fine with Delaware having that option. It's
actually a reasonable debate. Does that make Delaware the
target of this Committee's wrath? You don't hear them
complaining about Delaware.
You don't see the Biden Administration bringing Delaware to
court. You don't see the Biden/Garland Department of Justice
suing Maryland for their District maps in which Maryland
Governor Larry Hogan called it the nation's most gerrymandered
map as the State's legislature decided to override his veto.
Why are they doing this? Because they have to claim voting
rights are being violated to try to save themselves politically
because they know their radical leftist agenda, in which crime
is skyrocketing, opioids are flooding into our country, cartels
are empowered, China's on the advance, vaccine mandates are
crippling jobs, kids, and businesses, Russia is, potentially,
invading Ukraine. All that is being rejected by the American
people.
The truth is that it is easier today for Americans to vote
than ever before in our nation's history. Yet, Democrats tried
to destroy the Senate filibuster on a partisan basis to do the
following: Totally prohibit the use of voter identification,
require States to allow felons to vote, create permanent paper
ballot requirements, make political doxxing targets of donors
to private organizations, use taxpayer dollars for political
campaigns, and I could go on and on.
My Democratic colleagues are not interested in debating any
of their failed policies destroying freedom in the lives and
livelihoods of Americans but, rather, to sow fear.
President Biden said just yesterday, and I quote, ``I'm not
saying it's going to be legit. The increase in the prospect of
being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able
to get those reforms passed.'' Further, ``It all depends on
whether or not we are able to make the case to the American
people that this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of
the election.''
Senator Schumer knew he wouldn't pass this bill. His
purpose is not the legislation. The purpose is to delegitimize
elections ahead of the game and to intentionally divide the
country.
They spent four years on Russian collusion. Now, they're
setting up the narrative for 2022 to use race baiting to create
a toxic environment of distrust to delegitimize a possible GOP
majority, and we should be better than that.
I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Roy. I'm sorry I didn't catch all
your remarks because I was riveted to the picture over your
head. Is that Ben Hogan?
Mr. Roy. It is Ben Hogan. My dad--I grew up in Texas and I
played college golf and Hogan sponsored us. So yeah, that's who
that is.
Mr. Cohen. I saw him when I was 10 years old here in
Memphis. It was a great moment. He was a great golfer.
Mr. Roy. Yeah. A great, great story.
Mr. Cohen. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Roy.
It's now my pleasure to recognize the Chair of the Full
Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, who might
have a picture of Y.A. Tittle somewhere.
Chair Nadler. Unfortunately, I don't. Thank you, Mr. Chair,
for convening this hearing.
Today's hearing on voter suppression and continuing threats
to democracy comes at a critical point in our history.
For the past several weeks the debate surrounding voting
rights has been almost exclusively focused on Senate
procedures. Yet, it is critical to remember that while the
Senate negotiates changes to its procedures, States like
Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, and Ohio continue their assault
on democracy.
Legislation to protect the fundamental right to vote in
fair elections free from racial discrimination faces united
obstructions from Republicans in the Senate.
Ironically, they are so intent on blocking legislation to
strengthen our democracy that they will not even permit the
vote--the most basic democratic act, the majority vote.
This disregard for core small ``D'' democratic values no
longer surprises many of us. Until relatively recently, both
parties shared a commitment to supporting the Voting Rights
Act.
As President Biden pointed out in his recent speech in
Atlanta, the Senate voted 98 to nothing to reauthorize the
Voting Rights Act in 2006, and the then-Chair of the
Subcommittee, Steve Chabot, and I presided over thousands of--
hundreds of hours of hearings to make the record.
Sixteen Republican Senators who voted to reauthorize the
Act that year still serve in the Senate. Now, they stand firmly
in opposition.
Here in the House, Mr. Chabot and I joined our former
Chair, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member John Conyers to
lead efforts to pass this 2006 reauthorization overwhelmingly
by a vote of 390 to 33. President George W. Bush signed it into
law. Sadly, that seems like ancient history now.
As the threat to voting rights evolved for decades after
the initial adoption, Congress continually updated and
reauthorized the law on a strong bipartisan basis in response
to less racially overt but no less discriminatory threats to
the right to vote.
For example, section 2 of the Act, which will be a primary
focus of today's hearing, was amended on a bipartisan basis in
1982 to address attempts by States to dilute the strength of
minority voting power through the redistricting process and the
other changes to the methods of election on the Federal, State,
and local level.
As we will hear from our Witnesses today, vote dilution
efforts remain a critical threat to our democracy as certain
States seek to co-opt the redistricting process. These States'
attempts to dilute the strength of votes cast by minority
voters are even more alarming in light of efforts by Republican
State and local officials to manipulate the composition of
local election boards or otherwise change laws related to the
Administration of elections.
I must comment here on the remarks made by Mr. Roy, who
said that many States have harmless laws. In Georgia, for
instance, and in other States, precincts and drop boxes are
deliberately being reduced in minority areas so as to produce
long lines, and then they make it a criminal offense to offer a
sandwich or a drink of water to someone waiting online.
Gerrymandering is justified as political rather than racial
gerrymandering. Yet, we see as Chair Cohen noted, the racial
motivations and the racial impact of these gerrymanderings.
The potential cumulative result of these various changes to
voting procedures and district lines, if they remain in place,
is a serious reduction in minority voting strength and a
reduction in Black, Latino, and other minorities'
representation and participation in government at every level.
An elected government that does not accurately reflect the
participation of American voters, all American voters,
regardless of race, is no true democracy.
In response to these efforts, Congress must do, once again,
what it has done repeatedly on a bipartisan basis for decades
since 1965--update and strengthen the Voting Rights Act to
ensure that all Americans can continue to vote and participate
in our democracy.
Yet, this time, we have been met with total obstruction.
The problem is not one Senator from West Virginia. The problem
is a political party--the Republican party--that has given in
to cynicism and adopted the worst arguments of those who
opposed the passage of the Act of 1965, all to gain some
marginal political advantage.
Michael Carvin, representing the Arizona Republican Party
in the Supreme Court, gave away the game when he boldly
admitted this position in open court.
In response to a question from Justice Amy Coney Barrett
about why his party had an interest in defending strict voting
restrictions that were alleged to have violated section 2, he
commented that eliminating them, ``puts us at a competitive
disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game
and every extra vote they get through an arguably unlawful
interpretation of section 2 hurts us.''
He wants to weaken voting rights because it will help him
win. It's that simple.
If we are to remain a true democracy, we must resist
attempts to poison our election machinery with partisan
interests that disenfranchise minority voters, and we must stop
attempts by States to deny or dilute the votes of Americans
because of their ethnicity or skin color. Our Constitution and
our values command no less.
I look forward to hearing from our Witnesses, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will remind everybody
that we're taking votes now. So, if you're not in DC at the
Capitol, you might want to make sure you cast your proxy vote.
Now, it's not my pleasure. Mr. Jordan is not going to give
an opening statement. So, we'll go to our Witnesses now.
We welcome our Witnesses on both panels and thank them for
participating in today's hearing. I will now introduce each of
our Witnesses and after each introduction will recognize that
Witness for his or her oral testimony.
Each of your written statements will be entered into the
record in its entirety and I ask you to summarize your
testimony in five minutes.
To help you stay within that five minutes there's a timer
in the Zoom view that should be visible on your screen. It's
not visible on my screen but, hopefully, it's visible on your
screen.
Before proceeding--and maybe it could be visible on my
screen. How do we do this? I don't know. More background
filters--it's too complex for me.
Before proceeding with testimony, I would like to remind
all our Witnesses you have a legal obligation to provide
truthful testimony in the answers to the Subcommittee. Any
false statement may subject you to prosecution under section
1001, title 18, the United States Code.
Our first Witness is Mr. Wade Henderson. Mr. Henderson has
been with this Committee as a Witness and has been a gentleman
fighting for civil rights for my entire career in Congress and
for many years before that. He's a champion. He's the interim
President and CEO of the Leadership Conference for Civil and
Human Rights, have previously led that organization for more
than 20 years.
The Leadership Conference is a coalition of more than 200
civil and human rights organizations. He's a graduate of Howard
University and the Rutgers University School of Law.
Mr. Henderson, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON
Mr. Henderson. Good morning, Chair Cohen, Ranking Member
Roy, Full Committee Chair Nadler, and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
most pressing issue of our time, the freedom to vote.
This morning, we find ourselves in an extraordinary moment.
Last night, the Senate delivered a devastating one-two punch to
our democracy. First, the cloture motion to end debate which
required a 60-vote majority failed to bring to a final vote the
Freedom to Vote John R. Lewis Act. Then, an attempt at
filibuster reform to ensure the eventual passage of the bill
was defeated.
Now, every senator had a choice to make, whether to save
our democracy or surrender it. In a deeply disappointing
outcome, the Senate voted to surrender. Members surrendered our
democracy to State and local legislatures across the country
who would take us back to a world which we call Jim Crow 2.0, a
world of exclusion, control, and inequality. Members
surrendered to those who stoked their partisan base with
vicious rage and incited violence against this very body and
they surrendered it to those who wrongly challenged election
outcomes and threatened election officials and their families.
If ever there were a moment in history that we needed our
leaders to unite to preserve our most fundamental principle of
participatory democracy, this was it. By leaders, I mean all
Senators, from both parties. We not only called upon Democratic
senators to defend our democracy, but we also called upon
Republicans, too.
The Voting Rights Act has enjoyed strong bipartisan support
since its enactment in 1965. This includes overwhelming votes
in Congress for the reauthorizations that were signed into law
by Republican presidents four times. Sixteen current Republican
senators voted for the Voting Rights Act in 2006.
Yesterday, we made a final plea to Minority Leader
McConnell to allow an up or down vote citing long standing
Republican support and reminding him that it was Republicans,
not Democrats, who passed the 14th and 15th Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution. Last night, these Senators failed to meet
the moment. Their refusal to allow the John Lewis bill even to
come to a vote shows how far their party has fallen.
Yesterday was a devastating day for our democracy, but as
Dr. King said, and I quote, ``Change does not roll in on the
wheels of inevitability but comes to continuous struggle.''
I want to assure you that the struggle continues. The civil
rights community is not backing down from this fight. Our
elections, the officials who operate them, and the voters
seeking to participate in them, are all under relentless
attack. We are in this fight for them, and we will fight until
we win. Now nearly nine years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court
gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v.
Holder. In its ruling, the Court invited Congress to update the
formula for requiring certain States and jurisdictions to pre-
clear voting changes to ensure they do not discriminate.
It was Members of the House Judiciary Committee who took up
the Court's invitation with resolve and tenacity. I want to
thank the Committee for your leadership in developing the
congressional record with evidence of voter discrimination and
taking seriously your obligation to restore the Voting Rights
Act.
The Leadership Conference supported those efforts by
publishing 13 State reports that documented the pervasive,
persistent, and adaptive nature of modern-day voting
discrimination just as the Supreme Court instructed. We
documented how the floodgates of discrimination opened on the
very day of the Shelby County decision. Mere hours after the
announcement, North Carolina passed its monster anti-voter law
which was later struck down by the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals for targeting African Americans with almost surgical
precision. Texas was not far behind with its own restrictive
bill that a Federal court ruled was intentionally
discriminatory.
We documented how this assault on democracy has only grown
in momentum since the 2020 election. The big lie advocated by
Donald Trump is fueling the actions of State lawmakers for
using the absence of Federal voting protections to pass one
restrictive voting law after another. A classic example is
Arizona which last year drastically limited voting by mail, the
voting method of choice for 80 percent of Arizonans. Combined
with record-breaking changes or closures of polling places,
Arizonans now have fewer opportunities to vote.
We are also seeing frightening attacks on election
officials and poll workers, interference with impartial
election Administration, and challenges to election results,
and voter dilution to partisan gerrymandering. This
coordinated, anti--
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Henderson, we need to wrap up.
Mr. Henderson. Thank you, sir. I will. We lost the battle
last night. As our heroes did before us, we will fight on until
victory is won because we have no other choice. Our democracy
demands it and thank you for this opportunity.
[The statement of Mr. Henderson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. I can't help but
continue to think about [inaudible] a time when Charlie Sifford
wasn't even allowed to play on the tour and of course, Charlie
Sifford was relegated to back seat tournaments until he won the
Hartford Open in what was referred to as the Wingnuttery State
of Connecticut in 1967. Great man, Charlie Sifford.
I would like to recognize our next Witness, Ms. Sherrilyn
Ifill. Ms. Ifill is the President and Director--Counsel of the
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, a position she has held
since 2013. In that role, she has led the LDF and increased its
visibility and engagement, litigating cutting edge and urgent
civil rights issues, and elevating the organization's decades-
long leadership fighting voter suppression, inequity in
education, and racial discrimination in the criminal justice
system.
She first joined the Legal Defense Fund in 1988, and
litigated voting rights cases for five years before leaving to
teach constitutional law and civil procedure for the next 20
years at the University of Maryland School of Law. She received
her J.D. from New York University School of Law and
undergraduate degree from Vassar.
Ms. Ifill, you are recognized for five minutes and thank
you.
STATEMENT OF SHERRILYN IFILL
Ms. Ifill. Good morning, Chair Cohen, Vice Chair Ross,
Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Sherrilyn Ifill, and I am the President and Director-
Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund or LDF.
I have had the honor of appearing before this Committee in
the past to talk about the need for voting legislation to
protect the rights of all Americans, especially for racial
minorities, but I have never felt the sense of urgency or alarm
as I feel appearing before you today.
Last night, the U.S. Senate failed to find a will to push
past an arcane rule with racist roots. This increases my alarm,
but also my resolve.
This country is in a State of democratic crisis. This very
moment, States are drafting, passing, and implementing laws
designed to create insurmountable barriers to voting. Those
barriers are targeted principally at Black and Latino voters,
Native American voters, disabled voters, and students. They
include laws designed to restrict early voting, absentee
voting, and the use of ballot drop boxes. They add the insult
of making it a crime to provide water or refreshments to the
injury of those who have to wait up to nine hours to exercise
the right that the Supreme Court has said is preservative of
all rights, the right to vote.
Laws have passed that are being considered that would leave
Black and Latino voters vulnerable to the kind of intimidation
reminiscent of the worst days of the civil rights struggle and
that we saw on the rise in the 2020 election. Just this week,
the Governor of Florida announced a plan to create an election
police force answerable to him.
Even more alarmingly, States have passed laws that give
partisan legislators control over the outcome of elections no
matter the votes cast. Election officials from Secretary of the
State to vote counters have experienced the sharp rise in
threats to their lives and to their families. Scores of expert
nonpartisan election officials have resigned from office rather
than continue exposing their families to danger. This would be
catastrophic for elections.
Since last spring, LDF has seen Florida, Georgia, and Texas
reverse voter suppression laws targeted at our communities.
These lawsuits have survived multiple attempts to prevent our
clients from seeing their day in court showing the seriousness
of our claims and we are suing Alabama and South Carolina for
drawing congressional districts for State legislative maps that
undercut Black voters' chance to elect candidates who will
speak to their urgent concerns in the halls of power.
Alabama's congressional map is akin to one person half a
vote for that State's long suffering Black community. We cannot
litigate our way past this threat. Others like Black Voters
Matter, the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, are organizing,
mobilizing, and registering voters on the ground, but we cannot
organize our way past this threat.
In the past, it was Congress through the Voting Rights Act
that ensured we had strong tools. Then the Supreme Court
weakened those tools first in the Shelby County v. Holder case
and then just this past summer in the Brnovich case. This is
why Congress must act.
Do not be fooled by those who call voting legislation a
Federal takeover of State elections. That is what Southern
segregation has said about mandatory school desegregation as
part of massive resistance. Tell them that their problem is not
with the Congress or with the Democrats, but with the
Constitution itself. Tell them that article 1, section 4 of the
Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws that control
the time, place, and manner of Federal elections. Tell them
that section 5 of the 14th Amendment and section 2 of the 15th
Amendment expressly empower Congress to enforce the guarantees
of equality in voting. You have the authority and
responsibility, and that constitutional power must outweigh
allegiance to any congressional rule, particularly a rule that
has been most often used to thwart civil rights.
There is no more time to wait. Early voting for the Texas
primary starts in just 25 days and Black and Brown voters will
be heading to the polls with a shredded shield facing new
restrictive laws without desperately needed Federal protection.
Added to this, we are more than halfway through the first
redistricting process in six decades without the full
protections of the Voting Rights Act. States like Texas and
Alabama have seen population growth driven almost entirely by
people of color that have already drawn maps that failed to
increase representation for those people or even set it back
and not just at the congressional, but judicial districting,
school board districting, and county commissions. One expert's
blunt assessment of this redistricting cycle, people of color
are getting shellacked.
Black and Brown Americans face the greatest assault on our
voting rights in decades. Only Congress can help now by passing
the Freedom to Vote John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. As civil
rights groups, we will not stop pushing for passage of the
legislation.
Historians seeking to explain the next century of American
life will look back at this very moment and ask the question
did we Act when we had the chance or did we squander our last
best hope to protect the freedom to vote and save our
democracy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be here.
[The statement of Ms. Ifill follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Ifill, and thank you for your
important work.
Our next Witness is Damon Hewitt. He is the President and
Executive Director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law. He has over 20 years of civil rights litigation and policy
experience developed over numerous positions he has held in
various organizations and nonprofits and public sectors. He has
spent more than a decade of his counsel NAACP Legal Defense
Education Fund and has authored numerous Law Review articles
and the book, The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Structuring Legal
Reform.
Mr. Hewitt received his J.D. from the University of
Pennsylvania Law School and his B.A. from Louisiana State
University.
Mr. Hewitt, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAMON HEWITT
Mr. Hewitt. Thank you, Chair Cohen, Vice Chair Ross,
Ranking Member Johnson, Mr. Roy, and Members of this
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties. My name is Damon Hewitt and I am President and
Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law. I appreciate the chance to testify before you today
about this series of on-going threats to voter suppression and
election subversion posed to Black voters, Brown voters, and
ultimately our entire democracy.
I join my fellow panelists in sounding the alarm to this
Committee, the Full Congress, and the public about the urgent
and substantial dangers we face as a nation due to the failure
to adequately protect the fundamental right to vote to millions
of people, particularly people of color, indigenous people,
low-income people, senior citizens, students, and people with
disabilities.
In reaction to the historic voter participation in 2020 and
fueled by the big lie, voter suppression bills have spread like
a cancer throughout the States over the past year and both
brazen and violent efforts to subvert and overturn valid
elections have ripped the nation. At the Lawyers' Committee, we
have seen these efforts up close. We have litigated more voter
rights cases in the past decade than even the U.S. Department
of Justice including pending cases in States like Georgia and
Texas on voter suppression and redistricting cases in those
States, and also Illinois where we actually sued Mr. Roy and
challenged Democrats for their erosion of the ruling strength
of a Black community in East St. Louis.
We also hear directly from voters through our convening
role in the Election Protection Coalition, the nation's largest
and longest running nonpartisan voter protection effort. During
the 2020 election season, we mobilized tens of thousands of
volunteer attorneys and directly assisted over a quarter
million voters through the 866-OUR-VOTE voter protection
hotline as they cast their ballots through the global pandemic.
We also represent U.S. Capitol Police officers in the civil
rights lawsuit against the perpetrators and coconspirators
responsible for the violent January 6th Capitol insurrection.
The voter suppression efforts and the violence we saw on
January 6th actually share a common thread. These are
deliberate acts by desperate people, those hell-bent on
silencing millions of Black voters, Brown voters, young people,
seniors, and others who turned out during the 2020 election,
all in the interest of maintaining personal and partisan power.
As you know, the Supreme Court has vetted the Voters Right
Act preclearance provision, the formula, section 4 which
enables section 5 in Shelby v. Holder. In the absence of
preclearance, many States including those with the recent
record of discriminating against Black voters have enacted
harsh voter suppression laws and devised new mechanisms to
hijack electoral processes, measures that now go immediately
into effect.
In the past year alone, we are seeing bills that shorten
the request period for mail-in ballots, impose strict signature
requirements for vote by mail, adopt restrictions on how and
when ballots can be delivered in terms of drop boxes and the
like, and also closing polling place locations, in some cases
reducing them down to one in the country, limiting voting hours
and shortening the early voting period.
Georgia is a prime example. It is SB 202 which I believe
Helen Butler will testify about later in this proceeding, but
it is important to note that Georgia also enacted legislation
that reconstituted several county election boards including
those in places like Morgan, Troup, Lincoln, and Spalding
Counties purging Black Members from those election boards. So,
these bills are not just death by a thousand cuts. Those cuts
are interspersed with deep and vicious gouges and gashes that
we believe and allege are antidemocratic.
The amounts of voter suppression, because they target the
means of voting that are most popular with communities of
color, even those that have become more recently popular during
the pandemic. They are specifically designed to make it harder
for certain people to vote which is why we have alleged
intentional racial discrimination in our litigation.
Remember, States like Georgia don't just want to change the
rules to prevent people from voting. They also want to prevent
any sunlight or accountability for their actions, hence, the
takeover of local election boards. In the absence of the
prophylactic power of section 5 to stop this legislation
through preclearance, impacted voters are left with less
effective remedies.
During last night's Senate floor debate, we heard one
Senator point to litigation under section 2 in Texas and
elsewhere as an indication that the Voting Rights Act still has
some power. We believe it does have power, but let's be clear.
Section 2 is not an effective substitute for section 5. Section
2 litigation is more data intensive, time consuming, and
expensive, but also it takes time for the courts to actually
render a rule. By the time courts provide relief, sometimes the
damage is already done, as I have indicated in my written
testimony.
Without section 5 preclearance or robust section 2 standard
which itself was also weakened and made cloudy about a Supreme
Court decision in Brnovich v. DNC, we are in a pickle as a
nation. We are in a crisis as a community, and we must address
this today. Congress must pass the combined Freedom to Vote and
John R. Lewis Act to strengthen the Voting Rights Act's
provisions.
Members, this hearing comes just five days after what would
have been the 93rd birthday of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. I want to leave you with his words: ``Voting is the
foundation stone for political action. With it, we can
eventually vote out of office public officials who bar the
doorway to decent housing, public safety, jobs, and decent
integrated education. The vote is essential.''
I believe that is exactly what some people are afraid of,
that the vote is powerful, that the vote will be used by Black
voters, Brown voters, and other voters of color, and other
voters marginalized by voter suppression. Make no mistake,
congressional action or obstruction or inaction in the face of
these outrageous attacks on democracy is the moral equivalent
on complicity in the acts themselves.
Thank you for your time. I will rely on my written remarks
and testimony for the remainder of my time.
[The statement of Mr. Hewitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Hewitt, and I apologize. I
understand I incorrectly referred to the NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund as Education Fund. So, I want to get that
clear and thank you for your good work.
Mr. Hewitt. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. Our next Witness is Mr. Thomas Saenz. Mr. Saenz
has been with us before, distinguished President and General
Counsel to Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
of MALDEF, a position he has held since August 2009. He was
also with MALDEF for 12 years and for eight years he taught
civil rights litigation as an adjunct lecturer at the
University of Southern California School of Law. Mr. Saenz
received his J.D. with honors from Yale Law School; an
undergraduate degree magna summa--summa cum laude from Yale. He
is recognized now for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS SAENZ
Mr. Saenz. Thank you and good morning, Honorable Chair,
Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Thomas
Saenz, President and General Counsel of MALDEF and as you
noted, I have had the opportunity in the last year or two to
address this Subcommittee about the critical importance of the
John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and, in particular,
reintroducing preclearance as a powerful form of alternative
dispute resolution to both prevent and efficiently deter voting
rights violations by jurisdictions across the country.
Today, I have the opportunity to address the ongoing
redistricting process that as you know occurs every decade
throughout the country. We are midway through that process, but
we already have some sense of what the impact of this first
redistricting without the protections of preclearance will be.
For the Latino community that has shown substantial growth
over the past several decades, every redistricting process
since at least 1981 has presented the opportunity warranted by
the growth of the Latino population to elect new officials who
are responsive and selected by the Latino community.
This year should prove no exception. Our Census show that
51 percent of the entire country's population growth in the
last decade was from the Latino community. Latinos are now 19
percent of the total national population and have shown even
higher rates of growth in particular States around the country.
That opportunity that should have been occasioned through the
Census demonstrated growth has not been realized.
Although we are midway through the process in some States
and many localities are still going through the redistricting
process, I can now quantify in some sense the impact of the
failure to put in place the John R. Lewis Act and in
particular, its preclearance formula.
MALDEF is in litigation against three States: Texas,
Illinois, and as of yesterday, Washington, about their
statewide redistricting processes. I choose these three States
not just because we are litigating against them, but because
they demonstrate the lie about the assertion that somehow the
Voting Rights Act is a partisan tool used only against
Republicans.
In Illinois, the process we challenged was entirely in the
hands of Democrats. In Texas, yes, it was entirely in the hands
of Republicans. In Washington State, notably, it was a
redistricting commission rather than a partisan legislature
that drew the lines that we now challenge.
In these three States and particularly in Illinois and
Texas, both, we saw not just the failure to create new Latino
majority districts in State legislature, Congress, and in the
Texas State Board of Education, but also the dismantling of
districts that were already Latino majority, either because
they were drawn that way a decade earlier, or because they had
developed through natural movement of population in the deemed
majority Latino districts over the last decade. So, we saw both
failures to create new districts and dismantling of existing
Latino majority districts.
In these three States, we saw for the Latino community the
price of the failure to enact the John Lewis Act in 18 lost
Latino majority seats in Congress, State legislatures, and
State Board of Education, 18 seats. I emphasize that because
the unfortunate nature of vote suppression is we often cannot
quantify the impact. Even at the primary level, we can only
estimate how many eligible voters have been prevented from
registering or casting a ballot. We can only speculate about
how they might have voted and the impact on the election.
When it comes to secondary effects, we can only guess. We
know it is devastating, but we can only guess at how many
voters were deterred from participating themselves because a
member of the family or community was prevented by vote
suppression from casting a ballot. At the tertiary level, again
devastatingly we know, but we can only guess at how many people
have seen this cynicism about government increase because of
vote suppression.
Through redistricting we can quantify the effects of the
failure to enact the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. The Latino
community now stands at 18 lost Latino majority districts,
districts that would have allowed the growing Latino community
present in this country from its very beginning in significant
numbers since the mid-19th century and an increasing portion of
our future would allow that community to elect candidates of
choice to important legislative positions. That 18 is only the
beginning because you are only midway through this process.
That 18, however, demonstrates how critically important that
the Senate acts to put in place the John Lewis Act and the
preclearance formulas that are embedded within. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Saenz, your time has expired.
[The statement of Mr. Saenz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Our next Witness is Ms. Maureen
Riordan. I welcome you back. You have been with us before. It
is nice to have you back again. A litigation counsel for the
Public Interest Legal Foundation which she joined in 2021,
previously serving for 20 years as an attorney in the Civil
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice including as
Senior Counsel, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
during the Trump Administration. Ms. Riordan received her J.D.
from St. Mary's University School of Law and her B.S. of
Criminal Justice from Seton Hall.
Ms. Riordan, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAUREEN RIORDAN HENDERSON
Ms. Riordan. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the
Subcommittee, and Ranking Members. Thank you for your
invitation to testify today.
For over 20 years, I served in the Civil Rights Division of
the Department of Justice. Eighteen of those years were spent
as a Voting Section Attorney and Senior Counsel. From August of
2000 until the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v.
Holder, my sole responsibility was to review changes in voting
that were submitted for section 5 preclearance.
In that decision by the Supreme Court, the Court made clear
that only certain conditions would justify any formula for
section 5 coverage today. Among the touchstones listed by the
Court are blatant discriminatory evasions of Federal decrees, a
lack of minority office-holding, tests and devices to vote, and
voting discrimination that is both flagrant and rampant.
Simply put, such discrimination does not, in my opinion,
exist today. As the Supreme Court stated: Federal intrusion
into the powers that are reserved to the States must relate to
empirical evidence. Triggers, such as many of those contained
in these bills that are built around political and partisan
goals, will never withstand constitutional scrutiny.
I come from a unique perspective because I did spend 20
years enforcing the Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, I have
learned some discouraging truths.
The section 2 which the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Bill
would give power to is the Voting Section in the DOJ. I have to
tell you that Voting Section is full of ideological, partisan
bureaucrats. Employees display an open hostility to anyone who
does not hold their leftist beliefs. The Inspector General's
report that I have attached to my written testimony provides
many instances of bad behavior.
They have a disdain for the equal application of civil
rights to all Americans. Furthermore, there is an accepted
belief that certain States should be targeted by the Department
in their voting rights enforcement. I have actually witnessed
signs on attorneys' doors that State, ``Mess with Texas.''
After the Shelby County decision extinguished the section 5
enforcement abilities, the company line within the section was
the following:
If we could just get a case of intentional discrimination by
the State of Texas, we can request section 3(c) coverage, and
that will be enough work to keep everybody busy.
The section has a long list of abuses by its lawyers for
improper collaboration in reviewing section 5 submissions. If
you want to know how Georgia was targeted, one might look at
the case of Johnson v. Miller. I have attached the opinion to
my written testimony, and I encourage everyone to read it.
Here, the Court sanctioned Voting Section Attorneys in the
amount of $594,000 for their egregious behavior in collusion
with an attorney from the ACLU. The Department had twice
refused to preclear a redistricting plan by the State of
Georgia for congressional offices. After twice refusing to
preclear that plan, they demanded that Georgia submit a plan
containing minority representation that was far in excess of
what is legally required or permissible. On the third attempt
to get preclearance, the State of Georgia caved and actually
accepted and put forward a plan that had been submitted by an
ACLU attorney and recommended by the Department.
Unfortunately, for the State of Georgia, years later, the
Federal Court found that the plan violated the 14th Amendment
because it was drawn for race reasons only. Essentially, the
State of Georgia was denied preclearance of its plan, until it
was browbeaten by the Department of Justice to accept a plan
that clearly violated the 14th Amendment.
There are permanent provisions of the Voting Rights Act,
such as section 2, that prohibit discrimination and provide the
DOJ with the ability to challenge election procedures. It is
noted that, until this year, they have only brought four
section 2 violations since the Shelby decision.
Lastly, these bills ban State photo IDs, despite
overwhelming support from a clear majority of Americans. They
require same-day registration; require recognition of coalition
districts; limit a State's ability to verify eligibility and
remove ineligible voters; require online voter registration and
require automatic registration; require the restoration of
felon voting rights, and taxpayer money to fund congressional
candidates. These are just a few of the provisions.
These provisions accomplish three things:
(1) The overturn several Supreme Court precedents.
(2) They severely damage the integrity of our elections.
(3) They impose unconstitutional mandates on the States.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Riordan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Riordan.
Our next Witness is Mr. T. Russell Nobile. If I
mispronounced that, help me. He is Senior Attorney for Judicial
Watch. From 2005-2012, he served as trial attorney in the Civil
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, including
five years in the Division's Voting Section. Also, previously,
he was a Legislative Assistant to a Member of the House
Financial Services Committee. He received his J.D. from the
Mississippi College School of Law and his B.A. from the
University of Mississippi. He served as a law clerk to the
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Mr. Nobile, please, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF T. RUSSELL NOBILE
Mr. Nobile. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Cohen and
Ranking Member Roy, and other Members of the Subcommittee. It
is an honor to be back before the Subcommittee.
In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of
voting ID. Following that rule, there was a rush by advocacy
groups alleging rampant illegal voter suppression. The nature
of those claims varied, but they usually involved allegations
that common-sense election regulations such as voter ID and
longstanding time, place, and manner regulations
disenfranchised minority voters.
Such allegations gained new intensity after the Supreme
Court's 2013 Shelby County rule. Following that, many advocates
revised their approach, claiming that alleged voter suppression
could only be stopped if Congress would pass new legislation
that abandons 233 years of constitutional tradition and have
the Federal government, rather than the States, assume control
over elections nationwide.
In an attempt to rally support for this new legislation,
its proponents have described a near dystopian-like world in
which minorities have no right to vote, and even going so far
as to coin the term ``Jim Crow 2.0'' to describe disfavored
State election regulation. More recently, they have smeared
people that don't support Federal takeover of elections as
long-lost supporters of Jefferson Davis, George Wallace, and
Bull Connor.
Everyone here knows what Jim Crow involved. It was State-
sponsored oppression of American citizens and in many instances
much worse. It is a uniquely dark period in our nation's
history with few parallels. For that reason, it is mystifying
that some allegedly serious advocates would smear reasonable,
common-sense election regulations as Jim Crow 2.0. Such
comments suggest the speaker neither understands Jim Crow nor
election regulation. Jim Crow is not a brand, and it is not a
software update. It is a dark period in our history that is
being invoked right now to inflame passions and to create fear
in minority communities.
As testified before this Committee in July of last year,
minority registration and turnout, not hyperbolic soundbites,
tell the true story of ballot access in the United States.
Recent data shows that racial disparities in voting have been
dramatically reduced, in many cases eliminated. This progress
is something we should be proud of. Yet, proponents of
federalizing elections rarely mention it.
The fact is that the minority participation during the 2020
elections was exponentially higher nationwide than it was
during the actual Jim Crow period in 1965. For example, take
Tennessee, Chair Cohen's home State. Black registration and
turnout in Tennessee in 2020 exceeded that for Whites. That is
hardly Jim Crow.
The same is true just downriver in Mississippi. Previously,
Jim Crow Mississippi had an astonishingly low, 64 percent
registration rate for Blacks. Ballot access has actually
improved over the last 15 years, despite relentless voter
suppression claims. Minority registration and turnout has
increased, and racial disparities have decreased.
The reality is that it is simply impossible for anyone to
reconcile current claims of large-scale voter suppression with
ballot access statistics. Moreover, despite the near ceaseless
claims of voter suppression over this time period, there is
woefully inadequate popular support in favor of a Federal
takeover of elections. Indeed, it is hard to find alleged
support for federalizing elections to be overseen by Federal
agencies akin to the CDC, the IRS, the Postal Service, or even
the DOJ.
The improvements in ballot access statistics over the last
15 years occurred, even while numerous States implemented
allegedly suppressive voter ID policies. In fact, concerns
about allegedly suppressive voter ID policies have failed so
spectacularly that voter ID now enjoys near universal national
support, with recent polling estimating 80 percent of Americans
support it.
There is an undeniable disconnect between today's voter
suppression narrative and reality, which explains why there is
inadequate popular support for federalizing elections. Until
this is resolved, the John Lewis Act and the Freedom to Vote
Act will remain remedies in search of a problem.
Thank you very much for the invitation to testify today,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Nobile follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
I do remember you from our previous hearings. Would you
remind me how you pronounce your name?
Mr. Nobile. Yes. It is Nobile.
Mr. Cohen. Nobile?
Mr. Nobile. Like Mobile, Alabama, with an ``N.''
Mr. Cohen. Mobile, Nobile. Nobile. I got you.
Thank you, Mr. Nobile.
Somebody has noticed that I moved my chair. I did that for
a purpose. Mr. Henderson will understand why, I guess. I am
underneath Everett Dirksen, who looks a bit frazzled and upset,
and that is the way he would be today. Senator Dirksen, who led
the cloture fight in 1964 to pass the civil rights bill--the
first time a cloture vote had ever succeeded on a civil rights
act--he was a Republican, the Republican Minority Leader, and
he was a sponsor, the prime sponsor, of the 1965 voting rights
law that passed, as did the civil rights bill, with more
Republican percentage votes than Democratic votes. The only no
votes on those bills were the Southerners who resisted change
forever. Everett Dirksen, a great Senator back in the day when
Republicans were true to their original founding and had always
been for civil rights.
Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Derrick Johnson. He is
the President and CEO of the NAACP, a position he has held
since October of 2017. He previously served as Vice Chair of
the NAACP National Board of Directors and is President of the
NAACP Mississippi State Conference.
Mr. Johnson received his J.D. from South Texas College of
Law; his undergraduate school degree from Tougaloo College in
Jackson, Mississippi. I think Benny Thompson might have gone
there, but I know Lenal Anderson did, a man I know in Memphis
who just passed away and a fine lawyer.
Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson, you might need to turn on your microphone.
STATEMENT OF DERRICK JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. That is important. You can hear me now?
Mr. Cohen. That is exactly right. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Chair Nadler and Cohen and
Ranking Members Jordan and Johnson, and Subcommittee Members.
Thank you for the invitation to testify about concerted
efforts to disenfranchise Black Americans and the need to pass
the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.
I ask permission to include my full statement in the
record.
I am proud to be with you today representing the nation's
oldest and largest civil rights organization. I am here to
speak for Members and activists of the NAACP across the
country. I am also speaking to you as a proud adopted son of
the State of Mississippi. Mississippi has been my home for the
past 30 years. I live and work in the heart of the State where
so many battles for civil rights were fought.
It was in Mississippi where Medgar Evers, my predecessor,
served at the State Conference and gave his life for the cause
of voting rights. It was in Mississippi where righteous people
of all races, religions, and creeds converged 58 years ago to
register voters during Freedom Summer. Among them were
individuals such as Hollis Watkins and Euvester Simpson, who
worked closely with Fannie Lou Hamer.
It was in Mississippi where some of those heroes were
summarily executed by White supremacists for the crime of
registering Black votes. Their sacrifice made this country a
more perfect union. The danger they struggled against never
fully disappeared. Instead, it festered under the surface, and
it is now spilling back out in a toxic soup of White
supremacists.
We are now facing an all-out attack on Black voters by a
former president, State governors, Federal and State
legislators, with complicity of the Supreme Court majority that
has abandoned its duty to uphold the Constitution to protect
Black citizens' right to vote.
We saw this right here in Mississippi where the NAACP
documented an alarming degree of voter suppression in 2020. For
example, polling places in Black neighborhoods throughout the
State endured an increased and a very visible police presence.
Black voters were purged from voting rolls and forced to vote
provisionally without any certainty that their vote would
eventually be counted. Late openings, equipment problems, long
lines in predominantly Black neighborhoods forced many voters
to choose between their paycheck and their vote, as a result of
waiting an exorbitant amount of time to cast their ballot. This
wasn't limited to Mississippi; this was repeated in many States
across the country, North and South.
As serious as these problems were, we now know that 2020
was just a dress rehearsal for the upcoming elections. The new
Jim Crow generation has ramped up its efforts to suppress the
political power of Black Americans to a new level with tools
and tactics their predecessors could only dream of. We are
looking at new lyrics, but the same old song.
Even if we can find a way to overcome the obstacles they
are constructing, they are creating a coordinated framework to
assure that ballots, once cast, are not counted and will not
count. The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act will go a long
way towards disrupting this effort to disenfranchise Black
voters. The NAACP has never backed down from working for
equality and justice, and we will not back down now, along with
our partners.
We can't do it alone. We need Congress to join us, to hold
true to your constitutional duty to protect our vote. Earlier
this week, we marked Dr. King's birthday, and we watched
numerous politicians quote Dr. King and embrace his life and
legacy. I will say to all of you that words are nice, but, in
the end, it is your actions that matter and that you will be
remembered for.
The actions we need from you now is to stand on the right
side of history and pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis
Act. It is so important to understand that what we Witnessed
last night isn't the end because the Voting Rights Act,
originally, it took three attempts to finally pass.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today,
and I will be happy to take your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, and thank you for your
work and representing the NAACP and Tougaloo.
Helen Butler is the Executive Director of the Georgia
Coalition for the Peoples' Agenda. In that role, she leads an
advocacy organization founded by the Honorable Reverend Dr.
Joseph E. Lowery. These initiatives have increased citizen
participation in the government of their communities in areas
that include education, criminal and juvenile justice reform,
voter protection, and economic development.
Ms. Butler, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HELEN BUTLER
Ms. Butler. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Cohen, Vice-
Chair Ross, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the
Committee.
I am Helen Butler, Executive Director of the Georgia
Coalition for the Peoples' Agenda, and I thank you for allowing
me this opportunity to talk about the ongoing threats to the
voting rights of Georgia's Black voters and other voters of
color which deny them equal access to the ballot box and,
ultimately, undermine democracy.
The Peoples' Agenda has always been dedicated to fighting
for the voting rights of Georgia's citizens through public
education, training, advocacy, and mitigation. However, we are
spending even more time and limited resources fighting
discriminatory voting laws, policies, and procedures at the
State and local levels in Georgia without the preclearance
process of section 5 that would have prevented many of these
discriminatory voting laws and discriminatory redistricting
plans from taking effect.
According to the Census, Georgia was one of the top five
States gaining population in the past decade, with Black people
accounting for 12.5 percent; the Latinx population, 32 percent;
and the AAPI population, 52 percent. By contrast, Georgia's
White population decreased by four percent.
The electorate has undergone significant demographic
changes with increases in the percentage of Black Georgians and
other Georgians of color registering to vote, participating in
elections, and utilizing mail voting and early voting for
casting their ballots in all their elections. These changes in
voting patterns have resulted in corresponding political
changes, as we saw with our historic election of our first
Black U.S. Senator, Raphael Warnock, and first Jewish Senator,
John Ossoff.
In response to this increasing diversity of Georgia's
electorate, our majority party enacted SB 202, an omnibus voter
suppression bill which drastically altered the process by which
voters applied for and received absentee ballots for mail-in
voting. They placed new restrictions and severe penalties on
public officials and nonprofit groups like mine for providing
absentee ballot applications to voters who need them. It
outlawed nonprofit organizations from providing just water and
comfort items to voters who stood in line, long lines, waiting
to vote at polling locations, and other suppressive
restrictions and penalties.
At the same time, SB 202 allowed voter challenges,
including partisans seeking to suppress the vote, lodging
frivolous challenges which required election officials to
schedule time-consuming hearings, even while administering
elections, and only giving voters three days' notice to
respond, and that notice was by mail, which oftentimes meant
that they would have to leave their jobs or school commitments
and not be able to attend to defend their right to vote.
Just last night, the Peoples' Agenda and other Georgia
grassroots organizations were in Lincolnton in Lincoln County,
Georgia, a rural county with a large land mass, no public
transportation, and approximately 6,000 registered voters for a
Board of Elections meeting where the Board was planning to vote
on a proposal to close all seven of the county's existing
polling places and replace them with a single vote center in a
gymnasium located on a two-lane country road outside of the
main downtown business and residential districts in the city of
Lincolnton.
This proposal came on the heels of new restrictions to
absentee voting in SB 202, as well as another bill signed by
Governor Kemp in 2021 that reconstituted the Lincoln County
Board of Elections to ensure that the majority party would have
control over the appointment of a majority of the Members of
Boards of Elections.
In an effort to stop this change from happening, the
Peoples' Agenda and our partners presented the Board of
Elections with a petition under Georgia law which would
prohibit the county from moving forward with polling place
changes if 20 percent of the voters in a precinct signed the
petition. That petition we submitted met the threshold, but
three of the seven precincts during the Board of Elections
meeting, of course--
Mr. Cohen. Ms. Butler, your time is up.
Ms. Butler. Oh, sorry. Okay.
What I am saying to this is that we really need the full
force and the passage of the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act
to ensure the protection of the right to vote for all Americans
because we stand in imminent danger of having our hard-fought
rights denied in greater numbers. Please Act now like our
voting rights and democracy depend upon it because it does.
[The statement of Ms. Butler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Butler. I appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Domingo Garcia, I don't believe--is he able to hear us?
I think he is having technical difficulties, and so be it. He
was to represent the United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, but
he is not able to participate because of technical
difficulties. So, thank you for your attempt.
Thank you for all the Witnesses.
We will now go under the five-minute rule with questions. I
will begin by recognizing myself.
First, I just want to put another historical footnote.
Everett Dirksen, of course, behind me is a historical
footnote and a great one to this day. The last Voting Rights
Act we had in 2006 was named for Fannie Lou Hamer, Mr. Johnson,
for Rosa Parks, for Barbara Jordan, and Cesar Chavez, and other
great civil rights leaders.
A civil rights leader on our Committee is Ms. Lucy McBath
of Georgia. I think it is appropriate at this point, after this
published testimony, that I yield the remainder of my time to
Ms. McBath, who knows firsthand what Georgia is doing in
redistricting.
Ms. McBath, you are recognized for the remainder of my
time.
Ms. McBath. Well, thank you so much, Chair Cohen and
Congressman Rankin, and all the Members, for allowing me just a
moment to address the Committee today.
In recent years, and arguably even longer, my home State of
Georgia, my district has kind of been the poster child for
State-led voter suppression. The State has repeatedly sought to
suppress the voices and the will of millions of Georgians,
particularly African Americans. Sadly, voter suppression is not
just a Georgia issue, as we have said today, but it is rampant
across the South and increasingly in many other States in our
great nation.
Voter suppression is just not a racial issue. It is an
issue of democracy, and efforts to suppress the will of the
people are, in turn, attempts to suppress the promise of
democracy that was intended for our nation. When not all
Americans are guaranteed the capacity to fully exercise their
right to vote, and when votes are diluted, as we have watched,
as is happening all over America, we weaken our country's
ability to live up to its full potential.
This Congress has a responsibility to and must pass voting
rights legislation. As Martin Luther King, Jr., has said in the
past, and I repeat this--so eloquently he spoke this--we are in
``the fierce urgency of now.''
Thank you so much for allowing me a moment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Cohen. You are very welcome, Ms. McBath.
Ms. Butler, people have said that--I think Mr. Roy said
that--certain States like Delaware got less early voting than
Georgia. Tell us some of the things that Georgia has done to
oppress people's right to vote. Why is the voting rights law
and the Supreme Court's eye on Georgia? Why would that be
important for people to vote?
Ms. Butler. Well, as I said, they are making it more
difficult for people to be able to exercise their right to vote
by mail. They are requiring photo ID to be submitted with their
absentee ballot application.
Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you about that, because that is
interesting. I am not--a lot of people are for voter ID and
all. For absentee ballots, how do you do voter ID in Georgia?
What do they want you to do, take a hologram and send it in?
Ms. Butler. Well, if you don't have a Georgia driver's
license or a Georgia State ID, not even the free voter ID that
you get from the State, but a State ID, then you have to
provide one of the other pieces of ID, like a copy of your
utility bill or some other piece of document that proves your
name and address. Of course, to do that, you would have to have
the capability of making copies.
Well, as we were in Lincoln County yesterday, there is not
a FedEx center, there is not an Office Depot, for people to
actually go and make copies. So, if you don't have a copy
machine at home, then how do you get a copy to send in, because
you are still in a pandemic? They would be required to travel
15-20 miles one way to get to a polling location. So, it would
be very difficult for them to do that.
Mr. Cohen. I got you. I see the problem. I see the problem.
Ms. Butler. Internet connection, too, is a problem.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, a lot of people in my district don't have
copy machines in their homes. They hardly have black-and-white
televisions. It is not easy.
Mr. Henderson, you have been around a while. Tell me, back
in the day, when you recall Republicans were leaders in civil
rights and voting rights, like Everett Dirksen, what has
changed?
Mr. Henderson. Well, thank you, Mr. Cohen, Chair Cohen, for
your question. Your portrait of Everett Dirksen behind you is a
very powerful reminder of the important bipartisan support for
voting rights since the inception of the Voting Rights Act in
1965.
You mentioned in your opening statement the support of a
bipartisan Senate and House of Representatives for the
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006. It is
important to remember that. I remember when a Committee Chair
of Judiciary, F. James Sensenbrenner, went to the floor of the
House of Representatives to defend the Voting Rights Act
against four amendments, any one of which could have easily
derailed the bill. It was a powerful indication of the
importance of leadership and bipartisan support that made that
bill possible.
Unfortunately, our country today is very different than it
was in 2006. It is incredibly polarized. We are seeing that
polarization reflected in the unwillingness of Republicans in
the Senate to even support a motion to proceed to debate, to
even allow the bill to be debated.
When the Leadership Conference Membership and I sought to
get support from Republicans, our Members wrote to 16
Republican Senators requesting a meeting, and particularizing
activity taking place in each of their States, to justify why
it was so important for them to at least express a willingness
to sit down and talk. We found complete resistance to that
effort.
So, to suggest, as has been done in the Senate, that we did
not reach out to Republicans is simply false, and we have
documented that in a series of letters that we wrote. It is
impossible to have bipartisanship if one side completely
refuses to even discuss an issue of extraordinary importance.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Mr. Henderson. That is why this effort was so clear, yes.
Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Henderson, for explaining why it
is complex and not simplistic to get these things done.
I now recognize the temporary Ranking Member, Mr. Roy, for
questions.
Is Mr. Roy with us?
[No response.]
If not, is there a Republican with us?
[No response.]
The Republicans have left the room, like Elvis used to.
So, Mr. Nadler, you are on. Mr. Nadler?
Chair Nadler. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Ifill, in your testimony, you cite historical parallels
between the urgency of this moment and the end of the
Reconstruction Era. Could you further elaborate on this point
and explain how the Voting Rights Act has, until now, served as
a bulwark against the democratic backsliding we are witnessing
in States like Georgia and Texas?
Ms. Ifill. Thank you very much, Chair Nadler. Yes.
As a matter of fact, I think this is a really important
point. Because one of the things it is critical to understand
about the voting suppression laws that we are seeing is that
the rise in these laws began immediately after the Supreme
Court's decision in the Shelby County v. Holder case in 2013.
Within months, Texas had decided to resuscitate a voter ID
law that they would not have been able to preclear, that they
had, in fact, tried to preclear earlier, and were prevented
from doing so. We sued and challenged that law, and we were,
ultimately, successful. The trial court, in fact, found that
there was intentional discrimination in the creation of that
voter ID law.
So, the progress that Mr. Nobile talked about in
Mississippi, for example, was directly the progress that came
as a result of the Voting Rights Act; of the Voting Rights
Act's preclearance provisions; of section 2 of the other
provisions that protected against conspiracies to interfere
with the right to vote.
In the Reconstruction period, the Reconstruction Congress
was very clear about what would be needed to ensure that Black
people would be full citizens. The 13th, 14th, and 15th
Amendments, obviously, are the amendments that were designed to
ensure that--the 13th, ending slavery; the 14th, providing for
birthright citizenship for both free and formerly enslaved
Black people--their citizenship had been taken away by the Dred
Scott decision--and including several provisions within the
14th Amendment that would punish Southern States that did not
allow at that time Black men to vote. Then, the 15th Amendment,
protecting against racial discrimination in voting.
In both the 14th and the 15th Amendments, the
Reconstruction Congress included enforcement clauses, and those
clauses gave Congress the power to enforce the guarantees that
were articulated in the two Amendments. That is the power from
which Congress was able to pass the Voting Rights Act. It is a
statute that implements the power that was given to the
Congress in the Constitution in the 14th and 15th Amendments.
It was that power that Congress did not use, frankly, for
the first half of the 20th century and the last 20-30 years of
the 19th century. They failed to use that power, which is why
Black voters were disenfranchised in this country, particularly
in the South, for most of the 20th century, until the civil
rights movement pushed Congress, forced Congress to wake up,
forced Congress to do its duty, forced Congress to fulfill its
obligations under the 14th and 15th Amendments, by passing the
Voting Rights Act, which provided those provisions that
resulted in the ability of many Black people to be able to
vote.
What was interesting--
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
Ms. Ifill. Can I just add one thing about the Voting Rights
Act? It was that, in the Act, in the legislative history, what
the Congress said is that the Voting Rights Act, particularly,
section 5, was meant not only to address voting discrimination
that they were seeing at the moment, but to address what they
described as ``ingenious methods'' that might be used in the
future. They didn't have laws then that kept you from providing
water to people in line to vote, but they knew that there would
be ingenious methods in the future. That was the purpose of
preclearance, and that is why we need it back.
Chair Nadler. All right. Mr. Saenz, what is the difference
between racial and partisan gerrymandering, and what are the
challenges of proving race discrimination in gerrymandering
under section 2?
Mr. Saenz. Thank you, Congress Member.
The fact is that section 2 litigation is extremely
difficult, and that is because it is litigated under the
totality of the circumstances test established in the
legislation. That means that you have to put together an array
of experts on issues relating to discrimination in voting and
beyond. You have to put together lay witnesses with experience
in the dilution-of-vote suppression that you are challenging.
It is simply extremely difficult to prove.
The same is true of racial gerrymandering, where you have
to demonstrate that the predominant consideration by the
redistricting body was race, when we know that race is relevant
consideration. The Supreme Court has recognized that. So, you
are trying to put what is done into a very narrow scope of over
considering race.
The bottom line, as you know, is that litigation under
section 2 and under the Constitution is extremely expensive and
why we need preclearance as an ADR mechanism to address voting
rights violations more efficiently.
Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
I would now like to recognize a Republican. Is there a
Republican who is with us and wants to be recognized?
[No response.]
If not, I would remind people that Everett Dirksen
sponsored the Voting Rights Act, again, and led the cloture
vote, the first time ever a civil rights bill had been stopped
by cloture. Because, for years, the filibuster was there to
defeat civil rights laws. That is why it was founded. That is
why it was started. Even Yale has taken John Calhoun's name out
of its history, off its dorm, and into the dust bed of history.
I now recognize for questioning Mr. Raskin. Is Mr. Raskin
with us?
[No response.]
I think I will go to Mr. Hank Johnson. I saw him on the
screen. Is Mr. Johnson still with us? Mr. Johnson?
He is walking. So, he must have voted.
So, we will go to Ms. Garcia of Texas, Ms. Sylvia Garcia
from the great State--I am not going to say that--from Texas.
Ms. Garcia. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank
you for, once again, bringing this very critical matter to our
attention.
I am not one that is complaining about the seven hearings
that we have had. I am not the one complaining of putting more
and more attention. It really is a time for action and a time
for legislation. So, thank you again.
This is actually something that is really dear to my heart
because many of the items that we have been talking about are
items that have stemmed from the State of Texas.
As we all know, our democracy is built on the sacred
principle that every American has an equal and fair right to
vote. States like my home State of Texas are imposing laws that
are already limiting that sacred right. Texas and other States
continue to pass laws that suppress, silence, and dilute
minority voters, especially Latinos. We cannot let this stand.
We must take action. It is our responsibility, our duty, to
protect voting rights for every American, no matter what their
ZIP code, where they live, or what language they speak. By
banning partisan gerrymandering and creating new protections
for voters, we will ensure every American can make their voice
heard.
History has shown us that Texas and Texas Republicans have
gone to much length in the past, and continue to do that, to
suppress votes. I disagree with my colleague from Texas from
the other side of the aisle; suppression is alive and well in
Texas, whether or not you want to admit it. For decades,
Republicans have split up and packed communities of color to
dilute their vote and suppress their vote.
As was mentioned in the Chair's remarks earlier, in Texas,
95 percent of the growth in Texas was due to people of color,
predominantly Latino. Yet, all the districts that were created
were created for Republican White voting districts.
So, I want to start with Mr. Saenz. Mr. Saenz, you and I
worked together on many of these issues for a long time. Tell
us how changes in the Voting Rights Act would protect us and
prevent a legislature from doing what they did this last time,
where, even though the population growth was people of color,
their results were that they packed Democrats into districts
and created more White Republican districts.
Mr. Saenz. Absolutely. As I mentioned in my testimony, we
have seen in three different States a total of 18 lost Latino
majority districts. 10 of those come out of Texas. That is
despite, as you know, half of the growth of the State being
Latino in the last decade. Those 10 lost seats are in Congress,
State House, State Senate, and on the State Board of Education.
How a reinvigorated Voting Rights Act through the John
Lewis Act would address that is clear. Texas would be required,
under the John Lewis Act, under both the geographic
preclearance formula and the known practices coverage formula,
would be required to submit its redistricting statewide for
prereview and preclearance either by the Department of Justice
or, as you know, as Texas has decided on several occasions in
the past, by a three-judge District Court in Washington, DC.
That would efficiently determine whether there was
retrogression, as there clearly has been from the maps adopted
this year, or last year rather, and whether there has been
intentional voter discrimination, as Texas has been adjudicated
over several redistricting amendments. So, instead of being
mired in litigation, because of the delay in Census data and
because of your early primary in Texas, it will not be resolved
before the 2022 primary elections move forward. Instead, we
would have preclearance, very efficiently and effectively
preventing these violative redistricting lines from ever taking
effect, that result today because of the failure of the Senate
to enact the John Lewis Act. It means that we will have in 2022
these violative lines in place in Texas.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I only have like 40 seconds. I will yield my 40
seconds to my colleague and friend, Lucy McBath, when her time
comes at the end of the hearing.
Mr. Cohen. Ms. McBath's has already spoken. If she would
like some more time, she is certainly--
Ms. Garcia. Oh, I want to apologize. I was on the floor and
I did not know that. I thought she was going to be left for the
end of the hearing, as you stated. So, if she wants 40 seconds,
she can have them.
Mr. Cohen. Well, let me ask Ms. McBath a question, and you
have got 40 seconds.
In redistricting in Georgia, what did they do with your
district?
Ms. McBath. Well, thank you so much for the time to
explain.
District 6 is the district in Georgia that needed to change
the least. So, what they actually have done, they have taken a
Biden-plus-11 district and they swung it 26 points to Trump. It
is now a Trump-15 district. They have taken out of my existing
district most of the diverse and Democratic voting blocks and
have shuffled in very conservative and Trump and red voting
blocks.
That was deliberate. I have always been the top target by
the Republican Party here in Georgia. Being the Member that
sits in the seat that was once held by Newt Gingrich--and I am
the first minority in the history of Georgia to ever sit in
this seat, the first Democrat since 1979--I have always been
the target.
So, what they have done is taken two swing districts,
District 6 and 7, and they have created a new Democratic open
seat, District 7, but they have done what we know to be
cracking and packing.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. McBath. I am just shocked by the
fact that Mr. Roy said that didn't happen and doesn't exist.
Ms. McBath. It does.
Mr. Cohen. Ms. Garcia, it is your time, and I guess you
have to yield it because your five minutes are up. Thank you,
Ms. Garcia.
Next, we go to a Republican. Is there a Republican with us?
[No response.]
They still have not come back.
Mr. Hank Johnson of Georgia, would you like to take your
five minutes at this time?
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, yes, I
would.
Thank you for holding this very important hearing. Voting
rights is not going away, even though the Senate last night
failed to do what it should have done.
In some respects, we can call it a racist Senate, the same
way that we can talk about racism when it comes to my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle making statements
today about Black people and Democrats race-baiting. It is
like, when you mention about how much of racism still exists in
the soil of America, they want to plant their heads in that
soil and refuse to acknowledge what is in the soil.
They have been emboldened now, Mr. Chair. My colleague from
Texas I am sure would not have felt comfortable in talking like
he spoke three or four years ago. Because of--
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Roy is back. He is back with us now, a
Republican being with us. I just want to make that
announcement.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, good.
Because of the election of Donald Trump and the Make
America White Again movement, he feels empowered to be able to
say what he wants to say. He knows that it is wrong, but he
feels entitled. He feels privileged. It is White privilege; it
is White power that allows him to say what he said. I am just
blown away by where we have fallen in our discourse on this
Committee.
At any rate, we heard about--Mr. Henderson, I would like to
ask you. Georgia is one of the nation's fastest-growing States,
and this growth has largely been driven by people of color.
Over the last decade, Georgia's Black population grew by 16
percent, almost half a million people, while the population of
White Georgians has decreased. Yet, the new legislative maps do
not reflect this tremendous growth of Georgia's Black
population.
Mr. Henderson, the Supreme Court has declared partisan
gerrymandering challenges a nonjusticiable political question.
It has continuously held that States may not engage in
intentional racial gerrymandering, is that correct?
Mr. Henderson. That is correct, Mr. Johnson. That is
correct.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. To be clear, district maps are
presumptively unconstitutional when race is the predominant
motivating factor in the legislature's redrawing of
congressional and legislative maps, correct?
Mr. Henderson. That is also correct.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. How are you able to show race as a
motivating factor?
Mr. Henderson. Thank you for the question.
My colleague, Tom Saenz, who represents MALDEF, I thought
ably answered that question in response to an earlier inquiry.
It is extremely difficult to establish the fact pattern
necessary to show that redistricting was based exclusively on
race or predominantly on race. It makes challenging
redistricting in a way that would show racial gerrymandering
extremely difficult to accomplish. One has to look at the
totality of circumstances and deduce from those circumstances
that race was the predominant factor, and that is extremely
hard to do.
I am now quite familiar with what is going on in Arizona
because, in a meeting recently with Senator Sinema, to point
out why having a debate on voting rights was so necessary, we
pointed out the demographic changes that have taken place in
that State over the past 10 years. We pointed out the fact
that, since the Shelby County decision, 320 polling places in
Arizona were closed. Seventy percent of polling places in
Maricopa County, the most diverse county in the State, have
been closed. At the same time, the legislature adopted recently
a limitation on mail-in voting, which Arizonans used, 80
percent of the population.
When you combine those factors together, the heavy reliance
on mail-in balloting, the closure of polling places, and
restrictions that affect Native American households because of
their lack of mailing addresses, other information; when you
look at the attacks on election workers that have occurred in
the aftermath of the 2020 election, and the fraudulent review
of voting procedures conducted by the so-called ``Cyber
Ninjas'' in Arizona, the first of its kind, the totality of
circumstances lays the foundation which allows you to help
evaluate both what is happening in the election process and the
gerrymandering circumstances.
Others may be familiar with Georgia specifically.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson, your time is up, I believe.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just leave with the fact that it would only be--
well, it would be only six blind mice on the Supreme Court who
could not be able to look through the facade and under a
totality of the circumstances rule correctly. I am not
confident that will happen.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
We are now at an unusual time in our hearing, in that we
have--Mr. Garcia, can you hear me?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, I can.
Mr. Cohen. All right. Mr. Garcia, who could not testify
because he had technicalities, is now with us. I will yield to
the desires of the minority who are with us now, Mr. Johnson,
the Ranking Member, and Mr. Roy, the Acting Ranking Member.
Would you like for Mr. Garcia to proceed with his testimony now
or would you prefer that we wait until after you have your
opportunity to question Witnesses, each of you. Or what would
be your preference? I don't want to discriminate--
Mr. Roy. I would defer to my colleague from Louisiana. My
instinct would be to allow the Witness, out of deference and
respect for his time, to allow the Witness to go ahead and
testify, and then, we will be happy to join in after.
I apologize. I don't proxy vote. I was down on the floor of
the House. So, sorry I wasn't back here.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Johnson, is that okay with you, to have Mr. Garcia
testify now?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Perfectly fine, my friend.
Then, let me just say briefly, my staff told me that you
were making some comments about Republicans not being on, but
we were, as you know, in the middle of a vote series, and we
don't vote by proxy. So, we had to be on the floor.
So, I am happy to let Mr. Garcia testify. Go ahead.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Many of you do vote by proxy, though. You just have a
lawsuit, but many of you do use that.
Mr. Garcia, you are to be recognized now. I don't have my
material before me. I know you represent LULAC, and you have
represented them over the years. You are recognized for five
minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF DOMINGO GARCIA
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
My name is Domingo Garcia, and I am from Dallas, Texas. I
am the National President of LULAC, the League of United Latin
American Citizens, the nation's oldest Latino civil rights
organization and the largest.
We are here because, unfortunately, since 1970, we have had
to file suits in Texas and all over the country to protect the
voting rights of Mexican Americans and Latinos throughout the
United States and Puerto Rico.
I am going to talk to you a little bit primarily about
Texas. From 2010-2020, 90 percent of the population growth in
Texas was predominantly Latino and people of color. As a result
of that, Texas was the only State that got two congressional
districts. We would have assumed that, because of the large
Latino growth, that we would have had two Latino-opportunity
Congressional Districts in Texas. After the meetings of the
Texas legislature--I testified there; we gave the numbers--even
though Latino districts could have been created in Dallas--Fort
Worth; in Harris County, Houston, and in South Central Texas
around Austin--San Antonio, no districts were created.
Literally, you could have just made squares; you could have
made triangles, and you would have created Latino-opportunity
districts, because we are, Texas is now a majority-minority
State, one of only six in the country. That didn't happen.
What happened was you had extreme weaponization of
gerrymandering for political purposes. By the way, we are not
partisan. We don't support Democrats or Republicans. We just
believe in fairness and equity in the process. So, whether it
is Democrats doing it to the Republicans, or Republicans doing
it to the Democrats, our concern is just that everybody has a
seat or an opportunity to have a seat at the table. That did
not occur during this congressional redistricting in Texas.
As a result, we believe that the plans that were adopted by
Texas in regard to Congress, the State Senate, the State House,
and the State Board of Education were intentionally
discriminatory. You have to go out of your way and create
wiggle lines, the gerrymandering that we learn about in social
studies courses about what used to happen in the 1890s in New
York. Well, that is happening in 2022 in Texas.
We believe that the only way we can protect the voting
rights of Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans in
the entire country is by passing protections that will take
care of Latinos.
For example, Congressman Roy, I know you are from Texas.
Look, I was a former State Representative. Texas had an only-
White primary. Texas had a poll tax that my grandfather paid,
because you had to pay, I believe, $2.50 at that time--and it
has grown to about 20 bucks today--to vote. That was to
intentionally keep people, Black and Brown people from voting.
Literacy tests were passed to make sure that, if you
couldn't read or write the Texas Constitution verbatim, you
couldn't vote. Okay? That was a test. How many jelly beans in a
jar--to do math. All those happened.
When we see voter ID, when you see all these efforts to
stop people from voting, think about this, what happened in
Texas was we used to have every senior in Harris County got an
application, not a ballot, just an application. The Texas
legislature passed a law saying: No, you know what? You can't
do that. You can't get more people to vote. We have got to
restrict the number of people that vote.
We can't have 24-hour voting, so that people that are
working third and fourth shifts, primarily poor working people,
can have an opportunity to vote, just like more well-off,
middle-class people. No, we are going to stop that.
By the way, I am in Dallas County. If I go register
somebody to vote in San Antonio, Austin, or Houston, I commit a
felony. If I help my neighbor, a senior, vote by mail, and I
help them fill out the ballot because maybe they are bedridden
or maybe their eyes are not--I commit a felon. That is what we
have come to in Texas--the criminalization of voting, to make
it so difficult that they have to rig the system, instead of
going for the hearts and minds of voters.
The fact of the matter is Latinos are pretty much an
independent group. We are socially conservative. We are pro-
police. We are pro-ICE. We are split on abortion. Republicans
have made inroads.
You can't rig the system like we saw. In the State Senate,
there are no Latinos from Dallas County, and we have the
largest Latino population, without a Congressional District or
a State Senate District. In the State House, there could have
been additional Latino districts created in Midland and Ector
County, Tarrant County, Harris County, and Caldwell County.
None of that happened.
That is why we believe that we are asking that a voting
rights bill be passed to protect the rights of every citizen to
have a fair shot at voting, and that is not what we are seeing
today in Texas.
By the way, LULAC is involved in litigation in Iowa,
Arizona, Florida. Because, unfortunately, again, we are seeing
these voter suppression tactics to keep Jose and Maria, and
everybody else that may be with a last name like Garcia, from
voting, or making it so difficult that the numbers go down.
Already, we see numbers, like for mail ballots, 50 percent
of the mail ballots in Travis County have been rejected. Why?
Because, for the first time, Texas required that you add your
Social Security number or your driver's license to your
application. Many seniors are forgetting to do that, and
therefore, their mail ballots are being rejected. So, it is a--
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. We thank you for getting
your technology corrected, and we appreciate your testimony.
I want to thank Mr. Roy for his courtesies in allowing you
to testify at that point, which I think was appropriate.
[The statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Now which, Mr. Johnson or Mr. Roy? Whoever you
choose will go first.
Mr. Roy. All right. Well, I thank the Chair. I have a few
questions I was going to ask, but I feel compelled to address a
few of the things that have been discussed, in part, probably
somewhat in my absence, and I get, understand why that's the
case. I said I was on the floor voting.
We're talking about proxy voting. It's not just about a
lawsuit. Some of us believe that it is unconstitutional and
wrong to proxy vote. We can disagree on that, but I have put my
money where my mouth is and I'm not voting by proxy.
That has caused all sorts of complications in my existence
in a world where the Congress is continuing to vote by proxy.
I've got competing engagements and I can't multitask if I'm
voting in person. So, that is a real issue, and we ought to
address it, and I think it's tearing apart the House of
Representatives.
I would also note that my colleague Mr. Johnson, comma
Hank, not Mike, was making some comments about my alleged White
privilege. I think it would be noteworthy, were my grandmother
still alive, who was raised in west Texas to a single mom in a
house with dirt and no indoor plumbing and my grandfather who
was the same.
My grandmother's father, who was an orphan as a result of,
we believe, I'm not going to claim any percentage of Native
American lineage. We believed by a family passing down that was
the case, and that was a part of his reason for being an
orphan. Growing up dirt poor during the depression. My great-
grandfather losing the farm. Then my dad working hard and going
to college despite having polio, which I know the Chair can
very much relate with.
I would question the assertion of my, quote, ``privilege
and White power.'' That I wouldn't comment on the absurdity of
these race-based focus with respect to legislation on elections
when I've been doing so my entire my life.
Including being a lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee
when I worked hard for Senator Cornyn when we were working on
the legislation of the Voting Rights Act of 2006, which has
been referenced here, to make very clear that it was clearly
unconstitutional.
That the data that is being based on was 1968 data. That
the case was not made for the reauthorization of section 5 to
be applied to the districts according to a formula that is 50
years old. That it was clear it would be tossed out on its
head. That it was then therefore tossed out on its head in
2013.
I'm proud to have taken part in helping draft the minority
views, additional views, to the record to make the case.
Because it was wrong. It was wrong then, and it would be wrong
now. That's the reality.
The former Representative Garcia, and I'm glad to have you
here and I was happy to defer to you to offer your testimony.
When we're talking about Texas law, I hear you, okay, and I've
talked to many people experience those issues with respect to
the horrors of poll taxes and literacy tests and what that
meant to disenfranchise voters.
Now, you're comparing that and analogizing. You made the
case, sir, of what we're saying. You're making the case in
analogizing it to voter identification. Yes, voter ID is a
necessary tool for ensuring the integrity of ballots and
election, particularly in Texas, where our borders are wide
open right now.
We've literally had a million people come to the United
States and be released into the United States over the last
year due to the complete and utter incompetence, and not just
incompetence but malicious refusal to actually enforce the laws
of the United States, to know who's in the United States.
The rationale for having voter ID is being made by the very
Administration who's accusing States of being racist for
wanting to have voter identification to ensure the integrity of
elections when they refuse to defend the sovereignty of the
United States. Those are the facts. We know what the numbers
are in Texas, and we see what's actually happened.
A final point on the gentleman's commentary about Mr.
Charlie Sifford, who I believe passed away this last year. I'm
trying to remember my timeline, but was obviously noteworthy
for being, and some people would call the Jackie Robinson of
golf. We're not here to talk about golf, but I do want to raise
an issue.
When I was in college and was a walk-on on the golf team in
college, there was a young man who was a dear friend who has
since passed away, unfortunately from meningitis, viral
meningitis while he was playing on the Canadian tour trying to
make it, Lewis Chitengwa.
He was the first Black to win the South African Open, and
he was my dear friend. He broke that color barrier. We would
talk at length. Yes, he, like other Black Americans, faced
racism in 1990s in Virginia, and we'd have conversations about
that.
You want to talk about privilege, he would talk extensively
about the privilege of being an American and the privilege of
what it means to be an American and having faced what he faced
in Zimbabwe and going over and winning the tournament in South
Africa.
I know my time is up, Mr. Chair. I'd like to try to keep to
the clock. I'm well aware of the importance of these issues. I
come at it from a very different perspective, however, about
the integrity of the elections and not using race for political
purposes.
One final point, and I know I'm over my time and appreciate
the indulgence, is that with respect to the--I'm sorry, I lost
my train of thought. I had another point. So, I'll defer and
yield back to the Chair.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Roy. If you come back with your
thought, I'll give you an opportunity to express it.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cohen. Ms. Ross has got time, Mr. Raskin has seniority,
but I'm going to recognize Ms. Ross because she has set a John
Kennedy picture in the screen, and I think Mr. Raskin is great
batting cleanup.
Ms. Ross, you're recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Ross. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just wanted Mr.
Raskin to know that I got my copy of Vogue Magazine today with
the big feature on him and his book and his family. He is not
only an excellent Member of the Committee, but a celebrity in
Vogue now, so congratulations to him for that.
I also want to thank everybody who came to testify today.
This is such an important issue. Right now, it is front of mind
for the American people because of what's going on the Senate
side. In North Carolina, it has been front of mind for
centuries.
I'm a former civil rights attorney and a State legislator
from North Carolina, and I've witnessed first-hand efforts to
reduce the power of minority voters in my home State through
racial gerrymandering and voter suppression laws.
Last week, a three-judge panel upheld North Carolina's new
maps for U.S. Congress, the North Carolina Senate, and the
North Carolina General Assembly. These maps are intended to
further reduce Democratic representation, an outcome that's
also likely to dilute the power of minority voters and reduce
minority representation at both the State and Federal level.
While this is not the outcome I had hoped for, the panel
did establish key findings about the unequal nature of these
maps and laid the foundation for the State Supreme Court to
rule against partisan gerrymandering on appeal, under the State
constitution.
The recent efforts in my State to undermine the continuance
of American democracy highlight the importance of passing
Federal voting rights legislation to ensure that our governing
institutions reflect the diverse communities they represent.
It's consistent with our history.
Finally, I want to correct a misconception that Members of
both parties have that expanding voting rights only helps
Democrats at the ballot box. In 2020, North Carolina offered
the longest voting period in the country, largely because we're
a military State. The State Board of Elections mailed absentee
ballots 60 days before the November 3 election, earlier than
any State.
In-person early voting was open for 19 days prior to the
election, and same-day voter registration was allowed at all
early voting locations, because of a bill that I worked on when
I was in the State legislature. Because our State made voting
so convenient, North Carolina saw record voter turnout in 2020,
with 75 percent of voters casting ballots.
Because of, not despite, the ease of access to the ballots,
Republicans secured victories across the State, including
Donald Trump. North Carolina's experience shows that
progressive voting laws do not uniformly benefit Democrats and
disadvantage Republicans.
Instead, they serve the interests of candidates from both
parties who can most effectively energize and inspire our
State's closely divided electorate.
My question is for both Sherrilyn Ifill and Derrick
Johnson. Please describe the impact of North Carolina's
congressional and legislative maps, the current ones, on the
voting rights of minority citizens.
Ms. Ifill. Thank you very much for the--for the question. I
will concede that LDF has not mounted a challenge around the
North Carolina congressional maps, although I am familiar with
what you have described. It very much reflects what we are
seeing in multiple States.
We heard reference to it in Georgia from Representative
McBath. We are seeing this in Alabama. We've seen this in South
Carolina. We're closely watching Louisiana, where Members of
the LDF staff are today, testifying in Baton Rouge.
That is the growth in the Black and Latino population in
these States, and I guess Tom Saenz referenced this as well, is
not being reflected in the congressional maps that are being
drawn.
This is the equivalent of erasing our population and the
representation to which they are entitled and deserve. As I
said earlier, this is not only at the congressional level, it's
not only at the State house level, but we're also seeing it in
county commission races, in judicial districts, in school board
districts as well.
This is what the project really has been about. We all know
that gerrymandered maps get grandfathered from decade to
decade. They constitute what becomes a permanent lockout or a
permanent diminution of voting strength for racial minorities.
So, when we see this going forward, when we see the failure
to take account of the population increases that have happened,
largely racial minority population increases within these maps,
this is directly a threat to the full citizenship and
representation of people who have a right to have their numbers
properly reflected in districting maps.
This work this year, that's what it's all about, it's about
ensuring that we can try and--
Mr. Cohen. Ms. Ifill, our time is up.
Ms. Ifill. Reverse the gerrymandered districts that have
shut our communities out of full voting strength for now
decades.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Ross, I appreciate it. Now, I'd
like to recognize Mr. Johnson for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
apologize, we've been in and out, as Mr. Roy explained. Neither
he nor I, many of our colleagues, Republican side, have voted
proxy, and we do believe it's unconstitutional.
We're litigating that, as you know. I think it would have
been an appropriate subject for our Committee to hear at some
point, but it was not to occur. So, apologize for being in and
out today.
Look, I have lost count on our Constitution Subcommittee,
but this may be the seventh hearing I think that we've had on
this subject in the last year. Listen, the integrity of our
election system is of critical importance. I mean, we all agree
on that.
I know that people try to make this a partisan thing, but
it should not be. Every Republican that I know, and I'm a
former State legislator in Louisiana, I know many legislators
on the Republican side around the country at the State level,
and of course everyone here in Congress, all my constituents,
the party activists, every single Republican that I know wants
every eligible voter to participate in our elections.
See, the thing about our party is we believe in the
original principles of our nation, the foundational principles.
We know that free and fair elections are central to all that.
So, all the claims that are made, these wild accusations
about the supposed intentions of Republican lawmakers around
the country are just completely unfounded. You ought to take
some time to go talk with these folks and see what they're
really about, and what they're trying to accomplish.
The Democrats in Congress are seeking to commandeer the
State redistricting processes to enrich themselves politically.
I mean, it's just--it's brazenly political, and it's obvious to
anybody who looks into this.
I mean, Washington Democrats are politicizing the VRA, the
Voting Rights Act, by seeking to overturn common sense and
lawful State election integrity reforms. Look at the example in
Georgia. It's been discussed today from mostly one side.
The Biden Department of Justice filed suit against the
State of Georgia over that new election law, SB 202. That law,
anybody at home can Google this and research it for themself.
Don't listen to what pundits and supposed experts are saying
about it, look at the law.
It strengthens ballot box protections. It enhances the
State's election integrity. That's why it was popularly
supported there.
One of the experts who's testified in this Committee on
election laws stated that the DOJ's complaint, the lawsuit that
the Biden Administration filed against that Georgia law, quote,
``Reads more like a press release from the Democratic National
Committee than a serious lawsuit by an apolitical Justice
Department,'' unquote.
This is the theme that we've returned to over and over in
this year. When we had Attorney General Merrick Garland before
us and all the other hearings that we've had on these subjects
and others related to it, the people are losing faith not only
in our election system, for all the accusations that are flying
back and forth.
More importantly than that, perhaps, in our entire system
of justice, they're losing faith in our institutions. The idea
that there is equal justice under law, that justice is blind,
because they're seeing the Department of Justice being
weaponized for political purposes.
That is something that should greatly concern us. All this
is being done for politics in Washington, and it's a shame. It
violates our constitutional order; it violates our principles.
It is the States that have the authority to do these things.
The Supreme Court has ruled recently, we've covered this ad
nauseam, that the conditions that existed in 1965 simply do not
exist today. There is no evidence of widespread voter
suppression or voter discrimination, or any of that. This is
not about race at all.
The legislators that I know, the ones that are working in
all these States, Republican and Democrat, are trying to ensure
that the elections are fair and free so that the people do not
lose their faith in the integrity of the ballot box. If we lose
that, y'all, we lose everything, and everybody should agree
with that.
Only have one minute left, maybe I'll ask our minority
Witness Ms. Riordan if there's anything that's been said that
she'd like to comment on, because I know she may not have
another opportunity. I'll give the time to her.
Ms. Riordan. Well, thank you for that. I just want to say
that I really think that in my experience within the Justice
Department, the amount of cases that we reviewed during the
time that I was there doing sector 5 from 2000-2013, when the
Shelby County decision was made, the amount of objections that
we had at time, Congressman, was .36 of one percent of all the
submissions that were submitted.
What people don't realize is the amount of work that goes
into making a submission to the Department of Justice, and then
the politics that are played by the Department in reviewing
them.
I don't make those accusations lightly. I find it to be
very disheartening. I will say that I don't believe that their
actions in the past justified them getting that type of control
over State election law again.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Very well said and I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I don't think you were
here when I told you the people about Everett Dirksen, who's
over my head and behind me. He had that argument made in 1964
by Southern legislators that it was up to the States.
He worked out compromises to make it acceptable to them,
but still none of them voted for the Civil Rights or the Voting
Rights Act, which Everett Dirksen did and all the Republicans
did then when it was the party of Lincoln.
I now yield--Jamie, you're not going to be our cleanup
hitter because we now have two other powerful hitters, Ms. Bush
and Ms. Jackson-Lee, but you're going to go at this present
time. I recognize the Honorable Jamie Raskin for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Before I begin,
did Ms. McBath want to take a moment, or--
Mr. Cohen. She's spoken twice, thank you. She was
recognized, but thank you for your offer.
Mr. Raskin. I heard my friend, Mr. Roy, right when I got
back to the office, unfortunately, I didn't hear what prompted
him to launch into a defense of his family and so on. I was
moved by what he had to say.
It reminded me that American history has been transformed
by coalitions between African Americans and Members of other
disadvantaged minority groups and working class White people,
who also have been targeted for political exclusion and
disenfranchisement.
I'm just wondering whether, Ms. Ifill or Mr. Saenz would
want to opine about there are certain disenfranchising
mechanisms, like the White primaries in Texas the subject of
Smith v. Allwright and Terry v. Adams, which were racially
specific.
Literacy tests I think were used that way, but there also
were a bunch of them that were targeted at both the African
American population and the White working class. Like poll
taxes I think were imposed across the board.
I just wonder, I'm not quite sure what got Mr. Roy upset
about what someone had said, but I don't think anybody would
deny that there has White people disenfranchised, certainly
under the wealth and property qualifications that America began
with.
What we're fighting for is universal voting rights for
everybody. So, I don't know, Ms. Ifill, Mr. Saenz, do you have
any comment on that?
Ms. Ifill. Yeah, let me see if I can do this very quickly,
because Congressman Raskin, and thank you for the question. I
feel I must respond to Congressman Johnson about the supposed
frivolity of lawsuits challenging the Georgia voter suppression
law.
LDF is challenging the voter suppression law. We're also
challenging the voter suppression law in Florida. In both
cases, the judge in Georgia, a Trump appointee, has denied the
State's motion to dismiss. Which tells you that these are not
frivolous claims, these are not press releases. These are
legitimate cases that will go forward, and the courts will
decide the strength of those claims.
Congressman Raskin, absolutely, and certainly many of the
provisions that we think about, automatic voter registration,
absentee voting, when we talk about drop boxes outside the
board of elections, the people they most benefit are those that
are disabled and the elderly. We should be expanding the vote
for everyone.
Texas's voter ID law that we successfully challenged, our
client in that case was a student at a Texas State University
who could no longer use her student ID to vote, but of course
could if she had concealed gun carry permit.
That also doesn't mean that we deny the targeting of Black
and Brown voters that has happened in this country since we
received the right to vote after the 13th, 14th, and 15th
Amendment.
The Voting Rights Act was designed to address that for a
reason. We can't deny that history simply by pointing to the
fact that there has been widespread oppression across the board
of many people without wealth.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you so much for that. Mr. Saenz, did you
want to add anything to that?
Mr. Saenz. No, I would just add that your point is
absolutely accurate. Voting rights laws benefit everyone. We
see collateral disenfranchise when it comes to voter ID, which
often a very significant impact based on class and economics.
In Arizona, we found that the attempt to restrict voter
registration, new registrant being required to produce a birth
certificate, other proof of citizenship, had effects on young
voters of all races who were choosing to register for the first
time, and on the elderly, who had difficulty obtaining the
proof of their citizenship.
So, it is absolutely true that there are collateral
disenfranchising, that voting rights laws, like all civil
rights laws, benefit every American.
Mr. Raskin. I think we're in this situation today because
of the Supreme Court's successful efforts to gut the Voting
Right Act in Shelby County v. Holder and the Brnovich decision.
There's been a war from the bench against the Voting Rights
Act, against civil rights legislation generally.
Are we at a point when we can recognize that Federal
statutes, including the most powerful voting rights statute we
ever had, the Voting Rights of '65, are not enough and we need
a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote?
Because all we've got is sort of a ragtag sequence of
antidiscrimination amendments.
You can't discriminate on the basis of race, the 15th
Amendment on the basis of gender, the 19th Amendment is on--
nowhere do you have what exists in most democratic
constitutions, which is a universal grant of the right to vote
to all citizens at every level of government.
Is it time for us to do that? Mr. Henderson, let me start
with you.
Mr. Henderson. Thank you, Mr. Raskin, for the question.
It's a very important question, and I believe you are right,
that a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote
for all American citizens would be a powerful tool that would
help resolve many of the disputes that we are talking about
now.
Having said that, the likely adopting and ratification of
such an amendment is virtually impossible. One need only look
at what's going on now with an effort to restore the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 based on the requirements imposed by the
Supreme Court in the Shelby County decision.
Many of us believe that the Court offered a roadmap to the
appropriate reauthorization of that act, even if we disagreed
with the holding itself.
There are some who suggest that the Court cynically
established a challenge which it knew quite well it would be
impossible to achieve, based on the fact that there was
inherent skepticism about the effort to really establish the
existence of discrimination.
We think the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate have
helped modernize the formula that the court required be
considered in an update of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Raskin. Okay, if I could pause you there, Mr.
Henderson, I just wanted to ask the minority Witness whether
you would agree to a constitutional amendment establishing a
right to all citizens to vote, Ms. Riordan.
Ms. Riordan. Yes, I would.
Mr. Raskin. So, and that I think would be the best answer,
Mr. Henderson. Maybe we could get people together around the
principle of a constitutional right to vote. I yield back, Mr.
Chair, thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Raskin, I appreciate it.
Mr. Roy, are you with us again? I see your cameras on. If
not, I was going to let him out of the sand trap that he was in
when he left us. So, Mr. Johnson, do you have any other
Republicans there?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I don't believe so, no.
Mr. Cohen. Okay, well, let's go next, I guess to Ms. Bush.
Ms. Bush, you're recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you, Chair Cohen, for
convening this important hearing.
We are all in the midst of a moral crisis, and we know
that. Last night, the nation watched as the United States
Senate failed to advance legislation that would protect our
fundamental and constitutional right to vote. For what? Because
of fear, White fear. Because of power, White power.
Fear that if and when we empower Black people, that will
somehow disempower White people. That if we empower Brown
people, the Brown community, that will somehow disempower White
people.
White people, especially White wealthy people, have long
exercised control over our democracy, because the mere idea of
Black folks possessing even an ounce of political power is
viewed as a threat to the status quo.
So, to those apathetic White folks who have yet to welcome
love and welcome anti-racism into your hearts, my question for
you is this: What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that we
will end redlining? Are you afraid that we will deliver
universal healthcare?
Are you afraid that we will end police violence? That we
will end the racial and gender wealth gaps? That we will
provide safe housing for every single member of our unhoused
community? That we will end our forever wars? Are you afraid
that we will end mass criminalization? Are you afraid that we
will dismantle the comfy White supremacy that many benefit
from? Because that's the world I want to live in, and that's
the world we should all want to live in.
W.E.B. Du Bois once wrote, ``If there was one thing South
Carolina feared more than bad Negro government, it was good
Negro government.'' Perhaps this here is the fear, fear that we
will build the kind of political power that is just, that is
equitable, and that will lead to transformative policy change.
Mr. Henderson, can you please explain how current voting
rights challenges, if left unaddressed, are not only a danger
to the participation of Black communities, but also a danger to
the overall health of our democracy?
Mr. Henderson. Thank you, Congresswoman Bush, for your
question, and you are absolutely right. African American voters
historically have been the canary in the mine. Their treatment
as a group has helped establish the standard by which we
evaluate voting rights on behalf of all our citizens.
Obviously, a recognition that other groups have experienced
discrimination is important. I think Tom Saenz and others have
established the effect of discrimination on Latino voters.
We've seen the same with Asian American and Native American
voters. Subgroups like individuals with disabilities and older
Americans will often face challenges.
However, the use of racial considerations in trying to
decide who is entitled to vote has created a pernicious system
that indeed, as now being assembled, does reflect what I think
is a Jim Crow 2.0. I know Mr. Nobile disagrees with that
characterization, but I think there is ample justification for
the use of that term, and it is not hyperbolic.
My own sense is that democracy is very much imperiled right
now. I think we have seen that in very significant ways, and I
think the failure to enhance protections for all voters, as has
been noted previously, will undercut the power of American
democracy to survive the challenges we face today.
Ms. Bush. Thank you so much, Mr. Henderson, and thank you
for all your work. Yes, this here Black woman would
characterize it as a Jim Crow 2.0.
Ms. Ifill, the Legal Defense Fund has done significant work
to end prison-based gerrymandering, which counts those who are
incarcerated as residents of districts where they are
incarcerated and not in districts where they are actually from,
all the while denying many of these community Members a voice
and a vote. This in turn distorts the census count in voting
districts.
What harms does present--prison gerrymandering pose to
Black voters?
Ms. Ifill. Yes, thank you so much, Congresswoman Bush. This
is the place where voting discrimination intertwines with the
longstanding discrimination in our criminal justice system that
results in Black and Latino Americans being disproportionately
represented in prisons around the country.
Prisons are often located in rural majority White areas.
They very often are places where employment opportunities exist
for correctional officers, particularly for White correctional
officers. When those who are incarcerated, disproportionately
Black and Brown, are counted as part of those rural districts
where they are not residents, then that means that all the
collateral consequences of counting them there flow as well.
That includes funding, plans around development and business.
and jobs, and so on and so forth when in fact they should be
counted in their home communities because most people who are
in prison will go home.
We know that when we count in the census and we do our
districting it lasts for 10 years, but most people will be home
before then and it essentially means that resources that should
be allocated to communities of color in places like where I'm
sitting right now, Baltimore City, are instead allocated to
places in--that are rural and that are majority White.
Ms. Bush. Yes, thank you so much. We can no longer appeal
to the moral conscience of White moderates as Dr. King warned.
We now know that our fight is an existential one. It demands
that we ask ourselves fundamental questions about what we stand
for as a country. Do we stand for White supremacy or do we
stand for--do we stand for White supremacy or antiracism? Do we
stand for politics or fear or politics of opportunity? That is
what is at stake. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, we can't hear you, sir. You are
muted.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
I said if Mr. Johnson's walking the halls, if he would like
to say anything, he would be welcome to.
He doesn't, I guess. Anyway, I now recognize--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, I will pass, Mr. Chair. I
appreciate it. Having technical difficulties here.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
I now recognize the lady who represents the district of
Barbara Jordan, I believe; if not the district, the spirit, and
one of the great leaders whose names were sponsors of the 2006
law; it was the Fannie Lou Hamer bill as well as the Rosa Parks
and the Barbara Jordan bill in 2006, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee,
for five minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Chair, thank you for this timely hearing
and thank you for reminding us of that moment in history. I was
pleased to be able to add my predecessor and mentor the
Honorable Barbara Jordan's name to that bill in terms of its
absolute unity between Republicans and Democrats.
I was crushed last night about 10:30 p.m. as a sinister Act
was performed on the floor of the United States Senate, and
that is the defeat of a talking filibuster that would have led
to the opportunity for the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In
the words of Dr. King, paraphrased, justice was crushed and
certainly the righteousness of rolling waters did not exist.
So, I believe that it is crucial for this hearing today,
but also to take up the words of the President of the NAACP as
was indicated on the floor of the Senate, ``We're not finished.
We will continue.'' My recommendation is for the Senate to
institute debate and to continue to place this on the floor of
the United States Senate until it is passed. We are in a road
that is going nowhere if we continue the pathway that we are.
Let me start by saying that it is my belief that race is a
crucial factor in the efforts that we have seen sadly by our
friends on the other side of the aisle. I did not call them
racists, but I said racism is an extreme factor in the denial
of voting rights. I listened to the minority Witness; we
welcome her, to describe persons at the Justice Department for
different views as left-wing persons only because they want to
enhance the power of the vote.
Let me also be very clear that section 4 indicates in the
Constitution that the Congress may at any time by law make or
alter such regulations.
In listening to Senator Klobuchar, I want to make sure that
it is not the Founding Fathers' desire that it be the tyranny
of the minority. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's my
principle that the will of the majority should always prevail.
The idle principle Republican government is the will of the
majority. That did not occur as we proceeded. We have been
stifled by the minority.
So, I want to focus on the question of race and voting, if
I might, and I want to go to Sherrilyn Ifill. In a discourse on
the floor of the House Senator Collins--excuse me, on the
Senate last evening tried to suggest that section 2 was a
substitute for section 5. Certainly, Senator Ossoff did a
beautiful job, but let us understand; and my time is short, how
crucial it is about section 5 and that it is a poor comparison,
though we welcome section 2, to suggest that that is the answer
to voting rights violations.
Ms. Ifill. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
Sections 5 and 2 were meant to complement each other, but the
preferred way of addressing voting discrimination was section
5, which is to have a mechanism to catch voting discrimination
before it is implemented and to avoid the long periods of time
and the high cost of litigation that Tom Saenz referred to
later.
So, the first resort was section 5 and the [inaudible]
process, which essentially Tom Saenz calls alternative dispute
resolution. Let me us an example from Texas, your State.
When Texas passed its voter ID law, we filed suit almost
immediately. This was after the Shelby County decision removed
pre-clearance. This was a voter ID law that Texas had been
unable to get pre-cleared earlier. The law went into effect. We
litigated. We ultimately won. Then we went up to the appeals
court. Then we came back down. We ultimately completed and
settled the case for 2018.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Ifill. In 2014 and 2018 that discriminatory voter ID
law was in place. It should never have been in place and that's
why we need section 5. When it doesn't--when it slips through
the cracks, then we need section 2 to be able to litigate and
challenge discriminatory voter--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. My time is short. I want to ask
Mr. Johnson, President of NAACP--and I know he knows that the
Niagara Movement started in West Virginia where Senator Manchin
is representing, and then to Wade Henderson.
I want to get to this question of race. Not to be able to
throw racism around, but every time voters who happen to be of
color seem to be making a legitimate legal headway. like Texas
for example, they have criminalized voting infractions. Please
comment on that because we will not move forward if we cannot
understand what the underpinnings of voter suppression is.
Mr. President of the NAACP?
Wade?
Appreciate your comments. I would also appreciate the
comments of Mr. Saenz if my President would allow them--my
Chair to allow them to answer.
Mr. Chair? Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Well, first, the vote is the currency in any
democracy. As we've heard here, many people are conflating race
with partisanship. For African Americans we want to fully
engage and participate and not be criminalized nor be put in a
partisan bucket because we want to have fair and equal
representation and the ability to elect candidates of our
choice.
So, the two examples that was used, both Texas and North
Carolina, you're seeing tremendous growth in populations in
Texas as a result of the Latino community and in North Carolina
of both Latino and Black community, and the representation as a
result of redistricting is lacking.
So, for African Americans, for the Latino community we want
to be able to fully engage to deposit our currency in this
democracy for clear representation and not be criminalized for
that, not be penalized for that, but stand up as full citizens
in this country.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Saenz?
Mr. Henderson?
Mr. Henderson. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
First, Derrick Johnson is a Vice-Chair of the Leadership
Conference and I associate myself with his remarks. I'd now
like to defer to my other Vice-Chair Tom Saenz to give him an
opportunity to speak to that question as well.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much, Mr. Henderson. Mr.
Saenz is welcome.
Mr. Saenz. Thank you. As you know, your State Texas is one
of a number of States on the cutting edge of change in this
country, and that's demographic change that is unprecedented.
We have the chance to demonstrate what democracies do in
response to demographic change, and what they appropriately do
is work to incorporate every one in the franchise and let them
all vote when they have the right to do so. Instead, what we
see is a reaction to demographic change, unfortunately in
Texas, repeated in other parts of the country; that is, to
suppress the vote, particularly of those groups that are
becoming of a size that is viewed as a threat to the powers
that be.
So, this is really about the opportunity to demonstrate
that racial demographic change can still preserve the democracy
that we have in this country. Texas, as you know, is right at
the cutting edge of these issues.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Chair, may I submit into the record these documents,
please?
Mr. Cohen. Without objection, so done.
[The information follows:]
MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. May I just call their names out? ``Texas
Election Officials are Rejecting Hundreds of Vote-by-Mail
Applications and is Going on as We Speak.'' ``Voting Rights is
a Constitutional Right,'' an article by myself in The Hill.
article dealing with the putting together of two African
American Members in the redistricting plan put together in
September 2021. Washington Post, ``New Texas Republican Map
Carves Jackson Lee Out.'' A statement of the mayor of the City
of Houston about the voter registration shortage right now
existing in the State of Texas where people cannot be
registered because we do not have any voting card, ``Voting
Suppression Glaring in Texas and Other States.''
As I indicate to Ms. McBath, I thank her for her
presentation because she too has been a victim of trying to
eliminate people of color from the process of empowerment of
democracy.
I yield back, Mr. Chair. I thank you so very much.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Do any of the Members want a minute or so to either make a
final statement or ask a final question, rebut anything, or
submit any new data?
Mr. Raskin, you look like you are pondering.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, forgive me, but I took note that
some of our colleagues were talking about proxy voting. Again,
I don't know what the specific context was, but now a majority
of both the majority in the House and a majority of the
minority in the House have cast votes, most of them repeatedly
by proxy. I know that there was a polemical attack on proxy
voting when the COVID-19 nightmare first began, but it seems
like it has been well established through practice. There are
no courts holding that we can't conduct proxy voting under our
article 1 power to define the rules of our own proceedings. So,
I think all that is a little bit of a red herring and an
irrelevant distraction from what we are here to talk about
today.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Raskin, Mr. Roy, and Mr. Johnson came back
to the hearing. They had gone to vote on the floor. I had noted
that there were no Republicans to have as questioners and they
were, understandably being in Washington, gone to vote. Mr.
Johnson has suggested that they; and I think he meant the
Republicans, didn't believe in proxy voting. I had commented
that they did; that they did participate. If they [inaudible].
Mr. Roy. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Roy, if you would like to respond? If you--
Mr. Roy. Yes, I don't want to waste the Committee's time on
a topic that is tangential, but in response to my friend
Congressman Raskin, look, I believe it is unconstitutional. I
have not voted by proxy. That is true for a block of
Republicans. I am an equal opportunity basher of my colleagues
when I think that they are doing something unconstitutional.
There are Republicans who speak with one voice and then still
vote by proxy. I disagree with them. Mike is in the same camp,
Johnson, I should say, from Louisiana. It puts us in an awkward
spot the more comfortable the body gets with proxy voting.
Then, for example, I had a speech at the University of
Virginia and I found myself when we were voting on the
infrastructure bill sitting in Fredericksburg waiting to be
told are we voting or not voting on the infrastructure bill,
because my vote might matter. So, I literally sat in a coffee
shop in Fredericksburg for three hours waiting to know whether
I was going to Charlottesville or coming back to the Hill.
I just don't think it is a great way to do business.
Obviously, I made a choice that I don't--I am not going to give
my vote to someone else. I just wanted to add some color to why
that matters in my view.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Roy. I appreciate that. You and
Mr. Johnson, I don't know that either of you have ever voted by
proxy, but the appearance Mr. Johnson was making was that
Republicans didn't vote by proxy and I particularly noted, as
Mr. Raskin mentioned, that now a majority of Republicans have
at one time or another voted by proxy including three or four
people once who voted by proxy when they went to Mar-a-Lago to
attend a fund raiser at Mr. Trump's resort and not because of
the reasons they are supposed to.
Mr. Roy, I hope you get to vote by--in person for many,
many, many years as this epidemic/pandemic will be behind us.
You are not over 65 years old where the coronavirus is more
potent and deadly. So, for those of us over 65 it is--we think
this is a good idea.
Regardless of that, anybody else have any--Mr. Roy, when I
left you, you were in a sand trap on the 17th hold and couldn't
remember what you were trying to come up with and speak. Did
you ever get out of the sand trap?
Mr. Roy. Yes, I did, but the hearing has gone on and we
have had a good conversation. I can do--all I was going to do
was--I am not going to go there. We have had a good--we will
move on and move forward. I appreciate the opportunity. We are
good and I thank you for giving me the opportunity.
Mr. Cohen. We'll put the sand wedge back with the clubs in
your bag.
Anybody else have anything?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Cohen. If not, I want to thank all the Witnesses--
Mr. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, Ms. Jackson Lee, quickly.
Mr. Lee. Ms. Butler, and Congresswoman McBath. Ms. Butler,
are you there?
Ms. Butler. I'm here. Yes, Congresswoman.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, thank you so very much for your
leadership.
To both of you, both Congresswoman McBath, could you give
the extraordinary impact on vulnerable voters, whether they are
elders, whether they are young people and they happen to be
people of color, whether they are Hispanic or African American,
and the suppressive/oppressive bill that you have?
Congresswoman McBath, would you just answer a simple fact?
You represent a district, you are an African American woman,
you did represent it well. In matching you in another district
do you think there was some underlying thought that they might
eliminate an African American woman in the United States
Congress?
So, Ms. Butler and then Congresswoman McBath.
Ms. Butler. Thank you, Congresswoman Jackson Lee. Thank
you. The undue burden that I've talked about this is with
regards to vote-by-mail where people have to provide IDs. A lot
of older people don't have the capacity to copy IDs because
they don't have Georgia driver's license or a State-issued ID.
The undue burden of out-of-precinct voting, that's a lot of
things. If you don't know, a lot of people don't get their
information timely. They can't vote out-of-precinct before 5:00
p.m., so it puts undue burden on them.
A lot of polling locations--just as I stated earlier in my
testimony, we were down in Lincoln County already where they
wanted to consolidate seven polling locations to one, giving no
reason last night, according to the Chair, and had no plan for
making sure people would be able to do it. Six hundred people
signed a petition, both Black and White, that said, that they
did not want that to happen.
The other part is the unlimited amount of challenges that
people can do to people's residency, of their ability to vote
in this bill, voter suppressive bill--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Butler. --where it creates a hearing process and three-
day notice for voters to respond to protect their right to
vote. The most egregious part though is the total takeover
process of the entire election process from removing election
supervisors, removing the Secretary of State from his
constitutional position as Chair of the State election board.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Butler. So, those are some of the things.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Cohen. I think our time is up. I thank you, Ms. Jackson
Lee and everybody else.
We have a great hearing. We have discussed a lot of issues
and that the importance of it is serious about the Voting
Rights Act and the place where our democracy presently rests in
jeopardy. This Committee continues to uphold civil rights and
voting rights.
We thank all the panelists, all the Witnesses that have
come before us.
The Committee Members will have five days to submit--
legislative days to submit additional written questions to the
Witnesses or additional materials for the record.
So, thank you for what you have all done and God bless the
United States of America and let's hope the filibuster does not
kill democracy.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]