    [Senate Hearing 118-519]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                     ______

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-519

                               MODERN-DAY VOTING
                           DISCRIMINATION IN ALABAMA

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 1, 2024

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-118-56

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

             GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov

                           ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     57-748            WASHINGTON : 2025

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota                 Ranking Member
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           TED CRUZ, Texas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
    JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  TOM COTTON, Arkansas
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
    LAPHONZA BUTLER, California          THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                         MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                     Joseph Zogby, Majority Staff Director
                    Katherine Nikas, Minority Staff Director

                        Subcommittee on the Constitution

                       LAPHONZA BUTLER, California, Chair
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas, Ranking Member
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  MIKE LEE, Utah
                    Jessica Jensen, Democratic Chief Counsel
                   Nicholas Ganjei, Republican Chief Counsel
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Butler, Hon. Laphonza............................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Sewell, Hon. Teri, U.S. Representative from Alabama..............    22

    Brown, Latosha...................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
        Responses to written questions...............................    55

    Dowdy, Shalela...................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
        Responses to written questions...............................    59

    Hattix, Laurel...................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
        Responses to written questions...............................    61

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................    21

                               MODERN-DAY VOTING

                           DISCRIMINATION IN ALABAMA

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2024

                          United States Senate,
                      Subcommittee on the Constitution,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:02 p.m., in
    Montgomery Interpretive Center at Alabama State University,
    Montgomery, Alabama, Hon. Laphonza Butler, Chair of the
    Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senator Butler [presiding].

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAPHONZA BUTLER,
              A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Chair Butler. The Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing
    will come to order. Today, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
    the Constitution is holding its first hearing of the year on
    protecting the right to vote at the Montgomery Interpretive
    Center on the campus of the historic Alabama State University.
        This center exists to memorialize the people, events, and
    the literal path of the 1965 Selma to Montgomery Marches. When
    the late great Congressman John Lewis and hundreds of foot
    soldiers in this State marched to secure voting rights for
    African Americans nationwide.
        Our country is forever indebted to the sacrifice of the
    Alabamians and allies from around the country who put their
    lives on the line to ensure that all Americans, regardless of
    their race, could access the ballot and have their voices heard
    in our democracy.
        The Selma to Montgomery marches, moved this body to action,
    and later that summer, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of
    1965. Though we have come a long way since 1965, we
    unfortunately still have a long way to go.
        In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States gutted the
    meaningful enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby
    County v. Holder. It eliminated necessary Federal protections
    for voters of color in jurisdictions with a history of voter
    discrimination places like Alabama.
        The Court moved to weaken, the Voting Rights Act again in
    2021 with its decision, in Brnovich v. The DNC, which made it
    harder for Plaintiffs to prove that restrictive voting laws are
    racially discriminatory by adopting guideposts that contradict
    the text of the VRA and the intent of Congress.
        I've called this field hearing today, this historic weekend
    to discuss the modern-day voting discrimination, that has not
    just continued but evolved and accelerated since the 2013 Court
    decision. In 2024, nearly 60 years after bloody Sunday, we know
    that though some things have changed in America, discrimination
    against voters of color is not one of them.
        The testimony we'll hear today will demonstrate and make
    plain that Congress needs to pass the John R. Lewis Voting
    Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act to restore
    the original protections of the Voting Rights Act, but to also
    undo the damage done by the Supreme Court, and protect the
    franchise of voters of color as soon as possible.
        Those State lawmakers and election officials may no longer
    make voters of color count the number of jellybeans in a jar,
    or the number of bubbles on a bar of soap. We know they
    continue to draw racially discriminatory congressional
    districts in a way that prevents voters of color from electing
    the candidates of their choice.
        We need only to look at the Alabama State Capitol, just a
    short walk away from where we sit today, and the State
    legislatures attempt to defy the Supreme Court's order in Allen
    v. Mulligan last summer, to draw an additional Black
    congressional district to understand that some things just
    haven't changed. majority
        And while Black voters in Alabama may now be able to cast
    their ballots in local elections, all one has to do is to look
    at the City Council of Newbern, Alabama and their refusal to
    seat Mayor Patrick Braxton to realize that though voting
    discrimination in 2024 may look different than it did in 1965,
    discrimination remains.
        The degradation of our democracy that began with the
    Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County and has
    noticeably accelerated since 2020 should be a shock to the
    conscience of all Americans regardless of race.
        That's why yesterday I stood with my colleagues for the
    formal reintroduction of the Senate version of the John R.
    Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would reverse the
    damage caused by the Supreme Court's decisions in Shelby County
    and Brnovich and provide additional Federal protections for
    voters of color across the country.
        As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissent in
    Shelby County, ``throwing out pre-clearance when it has worked
    and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes. It's
    like throwing away an umbrella in a rainstorm because you're
    not getting wet.'' Since she wrote those words, voters and
    jurisdictions that were previously subject to Federal pre-
    clearance have faced a torrential downpour of voter
    suppression.
        Now, let me be clear, I'm not here and we are not here to
    single out Alabama or any other southern State exclusively for
    voting discrimination. Even my own State of California had
    three counties whose election changes were subject to Federal
    pre-clearance due to their own history of discrimination before
    2013.
        In fact, Alabama is not the only State that has been forced
    by Federal Courts to redraw their congressional maps in the
    last year. Earlier this year, Louisiana was similarly forced to
    redraw its congressional district maps. After the Fifth Circuit
    Court of Appeals, which was one of the most conservative
    appellate circuit Courts in the country, ruled that those maps
    likely violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against
    Black voters.
        Louisiana like Alabama, ultimately adopted a map that
    granted Black voters an additional majority minority
    congressional district, ensuring that voters of color will be
    able to elect candidates who share their political beliefs and
    best serve their interest.
        Louisiana and Alabama's recent redistricting woes largely
    illustrate the need for Federal pre-clearance. Before 2013,
    both Louisiana and Alabama would have had to submit their maps
    for pre-clearance, likely preventing voters of color in those
    States from having to sue to achieve proper representation in
    Congress.
        As we'll hear today, these lawsuits often take several
    years and an overwhelming amount of resources to litigate.
    Though voters of color in Louisiana and Alabama will have
    adequate representation soon. They've also had to sit through
    nearly a full term of Congress without equal representation in
    the U.S. House of Representatives.
        And it's not just redistricting, in 2023 alone State
    legislators throughout the country introduced more than 354
    bills with provisions that make it harder for people,
    particularly people of color to vote. Fourteen States went on
    to enact 17 restrictive voting bills and that was just last
    year.
        And since 2020, State legislators have enacted nearly 400
    bills that make it significantly harder for Americans to vote.
    That is not only unacceptable. It illustrates why the key
    protections and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act must be
    restored to ensure that voters of color all across our great
    nation are able to access the ballot and have the power to
    elect officials who will speak for and legislate for them.
        Thank you all for attending this Subcommittee's field
    hearing today, where the weather is that torrential downpour.
    And I am excited for us to begin hearing our first panel of
    witnesses.
        I'll introduce our panel, and I'll talk about how our
    hearing will proceed forward even as our guests continue to
    join us. First on this panel, I want to welcome Major Shalela
    Dowdy, who serves as the founding president of Standup Mobile,
    a nonprofit organization that does work centered around voter
    engagement in Mobile County, Alabama, and as vice president of
    the Mobile NAACP.
        She is also a plaintiff in the Alabama redistricting case,
    Allen v. Milligan, where the Supreme Court ruled that the
    State's congressional maps likely violated the Voting Rights
    Act. Major Dowdy earned her bachelor's degree from the United
    States Military Academy at West Point, served 6 years in the
    United States Army on active duty and is currently in the Army
    Reserve where she holds the rank of Major.
        Next, I'd like to welcome Laurel Hattix, who serves as
    staff attorney for the ACLU of Alabama. Laurel has served as
    part of the litigation teams challenging Alabama's
    redistricting maps in Allen v. Milligan and previously served
    as a fellow at the Equal Justice Initiative.
        She served as a judicial law clerk on the U.S. District
    Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Earned her JD from
    the University of Chicago Law School and her bachelor's from
    Vanderbilt University.
        Last on our first panel, I'd like to welcome LaTosha Brown,
    the co-founder of the Black Voters Fund, a power building,
    southern based civic engagement organization. Ms. Brown is an
    award-winning organizer with over 20 years of experience
    working in the nonprofit and philanthropy sectors, on a wide
    variety of issues related to political empowerment, social
    justice, economic development, leadership development, wealth
    creation, and civil rights.
        Welcome to our panelists. Before we move forward, I'd like
    to lay out the mechanics for today's hearing. After we swear in
    our first panel of witnesses, each of them will have 5 minutes
    to provide their opening statements.
        After their opening statements, we'll move to the next
    portion of the hearing while I'll have the opportunity to ask
    questions. Following that, we'll move to our second panel where
    the witness will be given an opportunity for opening statement.
    We are live streaming today's hearing. So, if you brought your
    cell phones, we love for you to remember to silence them and
    remain as quiet as possible so that we can preserve the
    Congressional Record.
        I'll now ask our witnesses to stand and raise their right
    hand.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chair Butler. Let the record reflect a response in the
    affirmative. Thank you all. Major Dowdy, you can proceed with
    your opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF SHALELA DOWDY, VICE PRESIDENT OF MOBILE ALABAMA
          NAACP, PRESIDENT OF STANDUP MOBILE, MOBILE, ALABAMA

        Major Dowdy. Chair Butler, Ranking Member Cruz and other
    distinguished Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity
    to submit this testimony concerning my experiences with racial
    discrimination in voting in Alabama over the past decade. I'm a
    major in the United States Army Reserves and graduate of the
    United States Military Academy at West Point, second Vice
    President of the Alabama NAACP.
        And we and the founding president of Stand Mobile, where we
    believe that is important for all people to have their voices
    heard, especially those who are too often excluded from the
    political, economic, and social institutions that help shape
    their lives.
        I submit this testimony as an organizer who is passionate
    about voting rights and fair access to the ballot. This work
    led me to become a plaintiff in the ongoing historic voting
    rights case, Allen v. Milligan, where alongside my co-
    plaintiffs, we fought against Alabama's racially discriminatory
    2021 congressional map and the 2022 congressional map.
        Both maps passed by the legislature in response of the U.S.
    Supreme Court affirming that the 2021 map likely violated
    Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, failed to provide Black
    Alabamians a fair and equal opportunity to elect their
    preferred candidate. And instead, unfairly prioritize the needs
    of White Alabamians and limited Black voters to have any true
    influence by giving us basically only one out of the seven
    Alabama congressional Districts.
        Alabama's elected officials and those in positions of power
    have a continuous history of unfairly minimizing the voting
    power of Black people and enacting voting restrictions that
    make it disproportionately more difficult to vote and have
    their votes counted.
        This pattern continued during the redistricting cycle,
    after the 2020 census. Alabama's Reapportionment Committee was
    tasked with drawing new congressional State House, State
    Senate, and State school board maps.
        The Committee held over 20 public hearings around the
    State, both in person and virtually. I attended the hearing in
    Mobile in person and virtually attended a number of additional
    hearings held around the State. At hearing after hearing, Black
    voters urged the Committee to stop unfairly limiting the voting
    power of Black Alabamians and to draw two districts in which
    Black voters could have a real chance at electing their
    candidate of choice.
        The Reapportionment Committee ignored these voices. It
    rushed through its process in a matter of a few days, and with
    limited chance for public input and once again, produced the
    map that unfairly limited Black voting power to one
    congressional district. It did so by continuing to crack the
    Black Belt region into four districts, splitting Montgomery
    County and failing to unite communities of interest in my
    hometown of Mobile with those of the Black Belt.
        The Committee also failed to allow citizens the opportunity
    to provide public commentary on the maps the Committee
    produced. The Committee also did not allow the Black elected
    officials adequate time to review and provide input in the
    creation of the maps.
        The actions of the Reapportionment Committee showed a lack
    of responsiveness to Black Alabamians. In January 2022, the
    three judge court panel agreed with me and the other Milligan
    Plaintiffs, that Alabama's 2021 congressional map likely,
    unfairly diluted the voting power of Black Alabamians in
    violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as it provides
    Black voters less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect
    candidates of their choice to Congress.
        The court decided that the appropriate remedy is a
    congressional redistricting plan that included either an
    additional majority Black congressional district or an
    additional district in which Black voters otherwise have the
    opportunity to elect a representative of their choice, but told
    the legislature to be mindful of the practical reality based on
    the ample evidence of intensely racially polarized voting
    adduced during the preliminary injunction proceedings. That any
    remedial plan would need to include two districts in which
    Black voters either comprise a voting age majority or something
    quite close to it.
        After putting the decision on hold, the Supreme Court
    ultimately agreed that the congressional map violated Section 2
    of the Voting Rights Act. Given this decision, the three-judge
    court allowed the Alabama legislature to reconvene and produce
    a congressional map with a second congressional district in
    which Black voters would have a fair opportunity to elect a
    candidate of their choice.
        The legislature chose to defy what was ordered by the
    highest Court in our Nation. The Committee once again produced
    a map that was not fair and equitable, and in the summer of
    2023 did not produce its proposed map in time to allow public
    commentary on the map.
        The 2023 map consisted of congressional District 2 having a
    Black voting age population of under 40 percent, which the
    State itself admitted was not one in which Black voters would
    have been able to elect their preferred candidate in any of the
    past elections that they studied.
        The words of the Alabama Court--the words of the court to
    Alabama were blunt and unmistakably and calling out Alabama's
    blatantly and purposeful failure to fix the racially
    discriminatory map.
        The court states that it was deeply troubled that the State
    enacted in the map, that the State readily admits that it does
    not provide the remedy that the Federal court requires, and
    that it was disturbed by the evidence that the State delayed
    remedial proceedings.
        This time the court echoed the voice of the Black
    Alabamians in explaining that it could not help but find that
    the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the 2023 plan
    reflected a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of
    elected officials to the needs of Black voters in Alabama.
        The court noted that the legislature's purposeful decision
    not to create an additional opportunity district was strong
    evidence that it was unwilling to respond to the well-
    documented needs of Black Alabamians.
        Alabama chose to defy the order and the opinions of both
    the lower court and the U.S. Supreme Court, which revealed its
    dismissive attitude toward the requirements of Federal law and
    to an effort to stop its decade long pattern of excluding Black
    Alabamians from exercising their full and fair measures of
    political power.
        The legislative branch makes the law, but we have the
    judicial branch in place to expertly interpret the law.
    Choosing to defy the courts resulted in a court order map being
    produced that cost Alabama taxpayers over $500,000, not to
    mention the several million dollars in attorney fees they will
    undoubtedly owe.
        This is funding that could have gone toward much needed
    Medicaid expansion, healthcare issues, education, and so much
    more. The Alabama legislature does not seem at all shamed by
    the court's rebuke and instead has doubled down this
    legislative session on another exercise of modern-day voter
    discrimination in Senate Bill 1, which has passed in the State
    Senate and it's moving through the State House.
        SB1 will criminalize average Alabamians who assist others
    with their absentee ballot or the process. By the time this
    testimony is admitted into the record, the bill will have
    likely passed in the Alabama legislature. This is a dangerous
    tactic of voter suppression that is being implemented, that
    will have a drastic negative effect on the Black voting
    populations and voters with disabilities who disproportionately
    rely on ballot assistance to navigate Alabama's burdensome and
    confusing absentee voting process.
        During the 2021 municipal elections in Mobile, Alabama, I
    had the opportunity to work in the city's absentee election
    office for 3 months. I assisted citizens who walked in to
    complete the in-person absentee ballots, due to Alabama not
    having early voting as an option.
        I had the opportunity to witness many citizens who do not
    understand Alabama's complicated absentee process, which
    requires not only a copy of their photo ID but also signatures
    by two witnesses or a notary.
        On election day, I assisted with the counting of absentee
    ballots and witnessed numerous ballots that were not counted
    because the citizens did not adequately complete the absentee
    process.
        In my experience in Mobile, these ballots and those in need
    of assistance were disproportionately Black voters. This is not
    surprising, as I know a Federal court in Alabama recently found
    that Black voters are also less likely to have access to the
    internet or a computer in their home, less likely to have
    broadband internet and less likely to have a computer,
    smartphone or tablet compared to white households.
        The same court found that 12.7 percent of Black households
    do not have a vehicle compared to 3.9 percent of White
    households, and that Black Alabamians with healthcare risks,
    face poverty at higher rates than their white high-risk
    counterparts.
        All of this fits with my experience that Black voters are
    more likely to need access to the absentee voting process, but
    Alabama law has made it more burdensome for them to use it
    compared to white voters. SB1 continues this trend.
        In closing, Congress must restore and strengthen the Voting
    Rights Act. Alabama has shown that it is shameless in
    consistently enacting discriminatory voting laws, which then
    must be challenged in court, and which can take years to play
    out and can negatively affect individuals like myself who are
    working to assist Black voters in Alabama.
        Requiring jurisdictions like Alabama, which persistently
    continues to discriminate against Black voters and other voters
    of color to seek pre-approval once again for voting changes
    would help ensure more equal access to the voting process and
    voting power will go a long way in making the State live up to
    its professed values and comply with Federal law.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for being
    willing to listen to myself and the others who are testifying.
    It feels reassuring knowing that we have elected officials who
    care about what is going on out in the districts. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Major Dowdy appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Butler. Thank you, Major Dowdy.
        [Applause.]
        Chair Butler. Ms. Hattix, we'll actually turn to you.
    Please provide your opening statement.

              STATEMENT OF LAUREL HATTIX, STAFF ATTORNEY
                  ACLU OF ALABAMA, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA

        Ms. Hattix. Thank you so much. Chairwoman Butler and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify before you today. The American Civil Liberties Union of
    Alabama was founded in 1965, the very same year that the Voting
    Rights Act was enacted.
        In my current capacity as staff attorney for the ACLU of
    Alabama, I'm part of litigation teams challenging Alabama's
    2021 State Senate redistricting maps in the case Stone v.
    Allen, and its congressional maps in Milligan v. Allen.
        Well, the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Milligan
    demonstrates the continued importance of the ability to bring
    claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Post enactment
    relief in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder is insufficient
    to protect voting rights.
        It is not merely the history of Alabama, which demonstrates
    the current need for greater voting rights protection, but
    current discriminatory practices which continue to keep Black
    Alabamians from full and equal participation in the social,
    economic, and political life of this State.
        During the 2020 general election, in some Alabama counties,
    white voter registration outpaced Black voter registration by
    double digits. In Elmore County, there was a 16.2 percentage
    point gap between White voter registration and Black voter
    registration.
        These statistics are not mere accidents. They're the result
    of intentional policies implemented to disenfranchise Black
    voters. In 2014, after Alabama was no longer subject to Section
    5 Pre-Clearance, the State implemented strict voter ID laws
    that required voters to show a limited number of State issue
    voter IDs to vote.
        Simultaneously, the State of Alabama proposed the closure
    of over 30 driver's license offices around the State, which
    would provide these IDs. In 2016, a Federal investigation
    determined that the office closures would disproportionately
    impact Black residents in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
        Intimidation, suppression, and disenfranchisement are not
    merely problems faced by Black voters, but also Black public
    officials. In 2020, Patrick Braxton became Newbern, Alabama's
    first Black mayor.
        However, when Mayor Braxton attempted to execute his duties
    as the town mayor, former members of the prior majority white
    council reappointed themselves and declared the previous White
    incumbent who had not even qualified to run as mayor, as the
    new mayor.
        Mayor Braxton remains locked out of town hall to this very
    day. The current barriers to Black Alabamians accessing the
    ballot or political office go beyond disenfranchisement, in
    fact, they go to criminalization
        Proposed Senate Bill 1 is steamrolling past public
    opposition through the Alabama Legislature. SB1 would
    criminalize individuals who provide critical assistance to
    absentee voters, particularly those who are elderly, disabled,
    or in college.
        If churches, non-partisan organizations or community
    members exchange any money or gifts when assisting somebody
    with their absentee ballot, even gas money or a sticker for
    participation, that individual could be charged with a Class B
    felony, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
        In Alabama other Class B felony offenses include
    manslaughter, statutory rape, and theft of property in the
    first degree. While proponents claim this bill is necessary to
    prevent ballot harvesting, there is no widespread evidence of
    voter fraud in Alabama.
        Alabama law already strictly limits ballot return and the
    criminal penalties for violating these laws is already printed
    on absentee ballot applications. Even according to a data base
    from the Heritage Foundation, which nonpartisan independent
    researchers have called ``grossly exaggerated and devoid of
    context'' found only 20 cases of any type of election fraud
    from 2000 to 2023.
        If the 2013 decision in Shelby County had never occurred,
    Alabama would be required to submit SB1 to either the Attorney
    General or a Federal court for approval before it could be
    implemented. But without the pre-clearance requirement of the
    Voting Rights Act, Alabamians who face criminal penalties for
    promoting election participation must wait on costly,
    uncertain, and post enactment litigation to address any
    discriminatory impact of SB1, if it is passed.
        In between the filing and eventual resolution of these
    suits, the discriminatory law or practice remains in place.
    Unlike relief which can be quantified in monetary terms, there
    is no relief for the irrevocable impact of multiple election
    cycles, which may have taken place under unconstitutional
    conditions.
        This is why a new coverage formula, like the one proposed
    by the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is necessary to
    ensure that jurisdictions like Alabama that persist in enacting
    discriminatory voting laws, have review of those laws before
    they can harm voters.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to testify in front
    of this Subcommittee on these critical issues.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Hattix appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Butler. Thank you, Ms. Hattix.
        [Applause.]
        Senator Butler. Ms. Brown, your opening testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF LATOSHA BROWN,
               BLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND, ATLANTA, GEORGIA

        Ms. Brown. Well, the first thing I did right was the day I
    started to fight. Keep your eyes on the prize and hold on.
        [Singing.]
        I wanted to start in the spirit of why we are here and what
    has brought us here in this moment, and I want to thank you
    Chair Butler and the Subcommittee Members of the Constitution
    Subcommittee. You know, as we find ourselves in this hearing,
    we are 59, this is a historic moment--is a historic moment of
    where we are.
        Fifty-nine years later, and we are still asking the
    question, right. When will we have the democracy that we
    desire, we deserve as we sit here on this land that is holy
    land and holy ground, where people literally put their lives on
    the line to make sure that democracy was open and free for all
    of us.
        That we find ourselves, once again, 59 years later,
    literally staring at infringements upon our right of having
    free and equal access to vote. And so there has always been
    three particular ways that we've seen voter suppression and
    happen in this Nation.
        It has been one, restricting access to the ballot. Two,
    being able to weaponize the administrative process. And three,
    creating a culture of fear, chaos, and confusion. And so, part
    of what we've seen, particularly since the stripping of Section
    5 of the Voting Rights Act, we've seen those things.
        And so, there is a number of pieces that in Alabama, you
    know, immediately what we saw in 2011 right here in the State
    of Alabama that passed a voting rights--a voting ID law that
    required Alabamians to provide a form of ID and a very narrow
    list of options.
        And then in what we saw in 2015 is in the same State of
    Alabama and in the Black Belt region, which much of the voting
    rights movement took place, that there was a proposed closing
    of the DMV sites where people go to get their IDs in
    predominantly African American majority counties or that they
    had large majority counties in that area that targeted African
    American voters.
        And what we saw and what we've seen is we've actually seen
    a consistent pattern that reminds us of what we faced 60 years
    ago. We have seen--this is a moment for us that we want the
    Senate to think about. This is not a moment to turn backward.
    This is a moment to move us forward.
        And in order to do that, we've got to have the protections
    that voters literally, no matter where you are, no matter who
    you are, that you have the protections to actually have free
    and fair access to the ballot. What we've seen, and my work at
    Black Voters Matter--Black Voters Matter is a power building
    organization. We do civic engagement work in about 17 States
    around the country, primarily we're based in the South.
        And I can tell you from firsthand experience we've seen--in
    the last few years--we've seen people stand out in line and
    wait up until 12 hours to vote. We've seen spaces in which
    people--we've actually been at polling sites where the last
    person was not allowed to--did not cast their ballot until
    12:37 a.m., Wednesday morning.
        We've seen a disparity in terms of how people are voting on
    sides of town that are majority white, white boxes and voting
    areas, and then in majority Black areas. Why we ask this
    question, do we continue to see this kind of disparity?
        In addition to that, we've also seen an increase in the
    intimidation tactics at the polling sites. We've actually had
    workers from Black Voters Matter that people have pulled guns
    on. We've seen where folks have been told that they could not
    vote there because they had on a T-shirt that just had Black
    Voter's Matter or just had a message that was not necessarily
    pushing a particular candidate or a particular party.
        We've seen where people have been affected, particularly in
    rural areas about the limitations of drop boxes that we've
    seen, the elimination of drop boxes and other pieces that would
    restrict the access. And so, all that combined together, what
    we know is that there is--we have to be honest, in this
    country--there is an all-out attack on voters in this country.
    That Black voters are actually being punished for participating
    in the process.
        And as a result, what we've seen is we've seen a crop of
    new laws to come up as we're--as we sit right here in the State
    of Alabama, there's SB1 that is a law that is actually going to
    criminalize--seeks to criminalize those that help people to
    vote an absentee ballot, throughout in the State.
        In addition to that, what we saw is SB202 that immediately
    at the election in Georgia, what we saw is the passage of
    SB202, which has had a tremendous impact. You know, we know
    that it is that in itself, it has created a gap and a turnout
    that we've seen just immediately the impacts of that, that in
    fact, the racial disparities in the voter turnout in Georgia
    during the 2022 midterm elections, not only it persisted, but
    it was significantly became worse.
        That what we see is that in Georgia is significantly
    greater than the 8.3 percentage points before it passed, and
    that 62.2 percent to 53.9 percent in the previous midterm
    election, the disparity between Black and white voter turnout
    in Georgia and 2022 is actually higher than it has been in a
    general election in over a decade.
        And so, are these tactics working? Are they effective? They
    have been effective, in ensuring and targeting Black voters and
    impacting our access, our free and fair access to the ballot.
    And so, we want to implore the Senate to continue to hold field
    hearings while we are on the backdrop of Alabama.
        This is not just happening in Alabama. This is a nationwide
    problem. And we have to understand that how serious the nature
    of, how it weakens the democracy when people don't have free
    and fair access to the ballot. And so, we want to implore the
    Senate and Members of the Senate to take these findings and
    continue to build the record that we have to have field
    hearings, not one or two or three. We need to have field
    hearings to the intensity and to the scale in which this is
    happening to our communities.
        Secondly, we want to ask the Senate that we think that
    there should be a carve out with the filibuster, so that we can
    actually get this, that the filibuster cannot be an excuse to
    be able to get--not be able to get the Voting Rights Act
    passed. That in the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, as well as
    the Freedom to Vote Act.
        And then the third piece is that we need to make sure that
    as we are, that we are going to be true to the principles of
    this Nation. If we're saying that all men are created equal and
    endowed by their creator, then we have to ensure that, that
    this is a moment in time that we are actually being called to
    our highest and our best selves.
        And we're going to ask that the Senate also hold itself at
    that standard, that what you have sworn to uphold, the
    Constitution, that in fact you will do that by making sure that
    every single American in this country, that their rights are
    not infringed because of who they are, the color of their skin,
    or where they live. Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Brown appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Butler. Thank you, Ms. Brown.
        [Applause.]
        Chair Butler. Major Dowdy, I appreciate your patience with
    me in pronouncing your name. You would think that somebody with
    a P and a Z in a name----
        Major Dowdy. I understand----
        Chair Butler [continuing]. Would get it right. Shalela----
        Major Dowdy. Mm-hmm.
        Chair Butler. Shalela Dowdy. Major Dowdy, I'd love to start
    my questions with you. On April 21st, former Alabama Secretary
    of State, John Merrill responded to a tweet, and I asked my
    staff to pull it so that we could have it for the record.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        The Alabama Secretary of State, John Merrill, responded to
    a tweet criticizing Alabama's mail ballot ID requirement that
    has been mentioned here. In his tweet, he said,``when I come to
    your house and show you how to use your printer, I can also
    teach you how to tie your shoes and to tie your tie. I can also
    go with you to Walmart or Kinko's and make sure you know how to
    get a copy of your ID made, when you buy cigarettes or
    alcohol." Just let that sit.
        Major Dowdy, can you--to the best you can--explain why
    expecting all Alabama voters to either have a printer or easily
    be able to access a store with a printer is not just
    ridiculous, but has a disproportionate impact on Black voters
    in Alabama?
        Major Dowdy. Yes, Senator. And so, I would say the
    statement made by a former Secretary of State, I consider it to
    be ridiculous. If I need to print something right now, well, if
    I was in Mobile in my hometown. I would have trouble contacting
    people, my friends, and families to find a printer.
        And so, I'm thinking Mobile is an urban city. So,
    individuals in the rural parts of the States, which I have
    frequent a lot recently due to our congressional race. Access
    to printers--broadband is the issue too. And so, you--most of
    the time you need Wi-Fi to print these days, the way the
    printers are set up.
        And so, I think it was inconsiderate of him to make a
    statement such as that. He was equating not having access to a
    printer to them not being intelligent. And that was insulting
    as an elected official who is a leader within our State.
        And it really goes to show how some of our elected
    officials just are not connected and aware of the situations,
    the living conditions, and what the struggle is within our
    State concerning all of our citizens. And like I said, I needed
    to send a document to someone, and they lived in a rural
    county, and their response was, well, I'll be able to receive
    your message or receive your email and check my email when I go
    to church on Sunday.
        And so, I think a lot of those who are in elected positions
    are out of touch with the average Alabamian. And they just
    don't take into consideration that everyone doesn't have the
    luxury to have access to something as simple as a printer--it
    seems simple, even myself, I'm a college student right now, and
    if I need to print something, I literally, I do it at my law
    center, at my law school or I go to the library.
        But in the rural areas, everyone doesn't have access to
    vehicles like I stated. And even in the urban cities, some
    people depend on public transportation. So, I know how
    difficult it is for people to simply print their ID because I
    go out into the communities and I provide people with a copy of
    the absentee request form, which they're trying to criminalize
    that.
        They're trying to make it a criminal offense to provide
    another citizen with a document that's on the Secretary of
    State's website. How is that similar to manslaughter or a
    statutory rape? And so, I give them the request form and I
    realize they may not even be able to make much progress if
    they're not able to get a copy of their ID. And so, I think
    that was very insensitive of an elected official, a leader in
    our State to make a statement such as that.
        Chair Butler. Thank you. Ms. Hattix, Alabama is not only
    one of the most difficult States when it comes to voting rights
    restoration. It's also one of the many States whose voter
    disenfranchisement laws tied to the Jim Crow era, and their
    efforts to prevent Black people from voting. Can you speak a
    little bit to Alabama's voter disenfranchisement law and the
    history and how it was specifically crafted to cover crimes
    that the State legislature at the time was--thought, at the
    time was connected to recently freed slaves?
        Ms. Hattix. Thank you so much for the question. Chairwoman
    Butler. To fully understand our current moment requires us to
    understand our history. I often use the analogy, if you go to a
    doctor and they do not perform the adequate test to understand
    the depths of the problem, then they cannot prescribe you the
    remedy to be able to address that problem.
        And so, as you are saying, this is a historical development
    that began during the reconstruction era, when recently freed
    enslaved Black people were able to access the ballot in mass
    through programs, through Federal legislation that was supposed
    to give them these civic responsibilities and access.
        In response to the opportunity by Black Alabamians to
    access the ballot. There was an increased criminalization of
    them that went along with it. And this criminalization was
    focused on the development and the next iteration of a
    narrative that has existed in this country since its founding.
        And that narrative is that Black people in this country are
    assumed and presumed to be guilty before they have even done
    anything. And it is through that narrative lens that, in
    Alabama, we enacted a series of criminal codes that, they
    criminalized the everyday activities of people in ways that we
    wouldn't even recognize.
        People not having an occupation was criminalized in
    Alabama, never mind that there was a lack of access to
    employment. So, these activities were purposefully
    criminalized, because then they could then disenfranchise Black
    voters by saying, you are a criminal, you therefore cannot
    participate in our civic participation processes.
        And we see that today in the way that Alabama and our
    legislators continually expand our criminal codes here in
    Alabama. It is an ongoing process of criminalizing poverty,
    criminalizing lack of education, criminalizing the
    socioeconomic statuses that are purposefully created to keep
    Alabamians in the cradle of poverty so that they do not have
    access to voting rights.
        And so today in our legislature, there is an emphasis not
    on building up the lives of Alabamians but continuing to hold
    them in our carceral institutions so that they can then be
    disenfranchised at the polls by not even being allowed to
    participate in our civic processes.
        So again, this is a pattern, it is a practice. It is a re-
    imagination of a narrative that has existed in Alabama since
    people were first kidnapped and trafficked and brought to this
    country against their will. And it's one that we see persist in
    the percentage of bills that are focused on criminalizing
    Alabamians to this day.
        Chair Butler. Thank you. Ms. Brown, you're from Selma?
        Ms. Brown. I am.
        Chair Butler. Where, you know, this incredible facility
    that we're in, sort of tells this great story of courage and
    sacrifice to secure the right to vote that the march from Selma
    to Alabama.
        I'd love for you to speak about the role your hometown has
    played in the passage of the Voting Rights Act and talk a
    little bit about why it's so important that we continue to
    fight for voting rights. Even as we experience the--what's been
    described here is the legislative attacks as perpetrated by
    actions in the State legislatures here in Alabama and across
    the country.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you for that question, Senator Butler. As
    I sit in the room, I'm looking at pictures, and actually, I was
    feeling full as I was walking right here to the table, because
    I look over here to my left, and that's GWC's comms, we would
    call it affectionately the GWC projects, we would say that.
        In Selma, Alabama, I've organized--I learned how to be an
    organizer in this very area. You know, as I look, and there
    actually a couple of people on there that have poured into my
    life, that actually were the shaping of me. That, you know, I
    start with this question even as I was sitting here with the
    Senate, how long, how long, how much, how long should we suffer
    to get access to what we will like--what we deserve, that what
    is right, that we are actually holding this country to the
    standard, which it set itself.
        And so, when I think about Selma Alabama, I think about
    this little, small infamous place, that there were 600 people
    on the Edmund Pettus Bridge that knew that they were going to
    be--they were going to be met with resistance. They didn't have
    a lot of political power. They didn't have a lot of leverage,
    but they did have this belief in this thing called democracy.
    They did have this belief that they could actually shape, not
    just a nation for themselves, but actually for all of us.
        And as a result of their sacrifice, the sacrifice of those
    who actually were met with resistance that were beaten on the
    Edmund Pettus Bridge, all of us actually enjoy some aspect of
    democracy and having access to that.
        And so, this little city that sits in the middle of the
    Black Belt region, maybe about 40 miles from here. You know,
    it's interesting, it was also the place of where my family--my
    family were brought here as enslaved Africans, they were
    brought specifically to Selma, sold in Mobile, and brought to
    Selma.
        And so, the history of being sharecroppers and farmers in
    that area--the people of this area at one point provided one
    third of kind production for the country in this area. And so,
    this is an area that has been rich in giving, giving of itself.
    Selma has been very instrumental.
        And I think when we see the multicultural, multiracial
    pictures, if you look around the room that it shows us the kind
    of democracy that we envision when we talk about the ideas--the
    highest ideas of America. It shows us about people who actually
    are standing on this belief that all men and women are created
    equal.
        You know, it shows the tenacity and the resiliency of those
    who actually challenge those in power and say, no, this is what
    we're--we're fighting not only for freedom, but we're literally
    fighting for this thing called democracy to make it real.
        And so, as we are in this 59th year, I think that it is
    incumbent for us to really learn from the lessons of Selma,
    learn from the lessons of those that in Selma that saw the--saw
    something greater. They saw, just like Harriet Tubman and the
    North Star, they saw an opportunity and had hope for this
    Nation.
        And I would actually think of the many of the people like
    Reverend C.T. Vivian, Reverend James Orange, Dr. King, Ms.
    Amelia Boynton, these are people who actually put their day-to-
    day lives on the line, to be able to open up access to
    democracy. And I think what we see is--we continue to see--
    people on the front lines doing that work.
        But Selma not--should be a place that we see as where a
    beating took place. It's also a beacon of hope. It should be a
    light for us. It should be almost like a north star of where we
    go with democracy. You know, it is at nighttime in this moment
    that we see--and some of us say a dark night of the soul in
    terms of democracy, where we see this kind of increased
    political division. We see the rise of voter suppression. We
    see this constant attack that is in this moment that literally
    that's where the brightest lights can shine.
        And so, we are hoping that people see Selma and that the
    Senate sees its responsibility as the people of Selma, of
    leading the way of why we need to make sure that we are passing
    the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to
    Vote Act.
        Chair Butler. Thank you.
        [Applause.]
        Chair Butler. You know, as a daughter of the South whose
    occupation now requires me to be in Washington, it's always
    good to be back in the South where people clap----
        [Laughter.]
        Chair Butler [continuing]. It just warms the soul. Thank
    you for the response. I want to make sure that we are engaging
    and hearing the voices--different voices. It's one of the
    reasons why we wanted to do this hearing, not in Washington DC
    but to sort of get ourselves as this Subcommittee proximate to
    what is really--what voters are experiencing on the ground.
        Ms. Hattix, in your submitted testimony, you spoke to the
    challenges of voters with disabilities and to be a Black voter
    with disabilities. And being at that intersection, how would
    you describe the proposed laws of SB1 and the support that
    those voters might need across Alabama and, how that those--the
    people who would be supporting those Alabamians living with
    disabilities could be impacted?
        Ms. Hattix. Thank you for the question, Chair Butler. This
    question is not only deeply professional for me, but it's also
    deeply personal. I, myself, I'm a disabled Black woman. I have
    lupus. And due to the symptoms of lupus, I am unable to drive a
    vehicle. A lot of people do not understand the infrastructure
    or lack thereof in Alabama.
        We do not have a robust public transportation system, even
    in our most urban areas, much less our rural areas that allow
    people like myself who cannot drive, who cannot access public
    transport to go to the polls. To take it an even step further,
    the way that voting is talked about in the majority of this
    country, is as though it's a costless endeavor.
        In Alabama, in 2021, the median income for Black families
    in this State was $36,000, median Black income in this State.
    And so, when we talk about the structural barriers, we're
    talking about systems of poverty that make it incredibly costly
    for people to take time off work, which is not guaranteed at
    every job, particularly those that are low wage, hourly jobs.
        We're talking about designating money that people are using
    for food, for diapers, for baby formula, to call Lyfts and
    Ubers, because we lack the public infrastructure for people to
    use public transport to access the polls. And on top of that,
    we're talking about an infrastructure of voting
    disenfranchisement that limits the time and ways in which
    people can vote.
        And so, the real concern of SB1 is because the State has
    not addressed those gaps in our socioeconomic ways of living,
    in our structures, in our wages, it has become the
    responsibility of churches, of nonpartisan community
    organization, of volunteers and neighbors to fill in the gaps
    to address the cost to voting for everyday people.
        What SB1 would do is criminalize the work of these
    neighbors who are filling in where the State has failed. And
    so, under SB1, if individuals like those from Black Voters
    Matter, Rolling To The Polls, Lift our Voice, provide any sort
    of financial assistance or even gift--which is undefined by the
    legislature currently--to help those who need access to
    transportation, who need to be able to take time off work, in
    voting that behavior is criminalized not only for the recipient
    of those services, but for the people who are providing those
    services.
        So, to put this in very plain language, if I, as somebody
    who cannot drive myself to the polls, gave my neighbor $5 to
    compensate them for the gas money that they would take me, both
    my neighbor and I could be facing Class B and Class C felonies
    in this State for that behavior.
        And so, why would the State of Alabama, when in the 2022
    midterm elections, we had a voter turnout rate of less than 40
    percent, not emphasize their efforts on making sure there is
    increased access to the polls. If we are a nation, if we are a
    State that is focused on voter engagement and increasing
    participation in our civic processes, there is no reason to be
    focusing so much time and energy on not just passing bills, but
    bills that would increase our carceral population for those who
    are filling in for the places where the State has failed to
    care for us.
        Chair Butler. Thank you.
        Ms. Hattix. And then----
        [Applause.]
        Chair Butler. I knew it. I knew it.
        [Laughter.]
        Chair Butler. I just had to give you all time to get there.
    Thank you so much. Major Dowdy. I want to come back to you
    because I wanted to ask a question also about that you raised
    specifically in your submitted testimony. I wanted to note the
    point of--actually not Major Dowdy, Ms. Brown.
        Ms. Brown you talked about other States in your written
    submitted testimony and what you offered in your opening
    statement, the point you made about Georgia. I appreciate that
    you have in your comments sort of directed them toward the
    Senate as the body because we are--we have an obligation to
    govern on behalf of the country. And as I noted, not just in
    Alabama.
        And so, I recognize the topic is about Alabama, but just to
    look one State over, the State you mentioned, Georgia, the
    Brennan Center for Justice, observed last year in a report that
    multiple data sets and analysis confirm the growing disparity
    between white and non-white voter participation.
        What have been the consequences--what are the consequences
    if the gaps between white voters and voters of color continue
    to grow in States like Alabama, like Georgia, and across the
    deep south?
        Ms. Brown. You know, what you will see is you will see a
    continuous underrepresentation of those communities. And so,
    part of this idea of democracy is the notion that people will
    have representation. Taxation without Representation, that was
    the whole foundation of the American Revolution, wasn't it?
        And so, here we see that in these places where Black
    voters, quite frankly, have been targeted in the deep South.
    What you see is that it impacts not only our participation, but
    ultimately it impacts representation. Even in State, as from
    Georgia to Louisiana, we were also--and it's not just in--it's
    not isolated just in Georgia or Alabama.
        Most recently in the State of Louisiana, Black Voters
    Matter actually had to bring a lawsuit against the State of
    Louisiana for lack of representation for African Americans
    within the State housing.
        And as we're--we won, we actually won that particular
    hearing, where now they have to redraw the districts in such a
    way that we will have adequate representation in the
    legislature. What we see, though, it is also like death by a
    thousand cuts. We are actually seeing these attacks happen on
    the county level. We're seeing it happen on the State level,
    and then now without the protection, and we're seeing the
    gutting of the Voting Rights Act with the attack on Section 5.
    And then God forbid, Section 2 is eliminated, then it takes the
    teeth out of it, and it puts the onus of on Black voters.
        But it also disproportionately impacts us around--when our
    communities, when we're looking in at communities that there is
    an economic disparity. And when we're looking at communities
    that when you're seeing there's a health disparities when
    you're looking at communities that when you see education that
    even the idea of teaching Black history has been attacked on
    the school board level and people are not able to vote, if
    they're not able to vote and have representation and represent
    our issues, our interests. What we will see is we will start
    seeing policies as we've already seen, that actually impact and
    undermine and actually even further the gap, you know, it's in
    the justification. What's interesting in the Shelby decision,
    was the justification of the stripping of Section 5 was that
    the current conditions are not--don't justify the idea of the
    Section 5. I would say the absolute opposite. I think there's a
    preponderance of evidence that we see all across the State,
    immediately after the gutting of the Shelby decision, we saw a
    decision in Texas immediately, we've seen the massive closing
    of polling sites, we've seen the massive attacks, even when we
    saw in the 2020 election in Georgia where we saw that people
    because of Covid actually accessed mail-in ballot voting's.
    They use that as a tool and a key that now what we see is that
    immediately the State legislature went against that with the
    SB202 and stripped that and literally condense that, so, people
    have restricted access.
        And so, what does it mean? What it means is that when we
    are not able to freely and fairly participate in the process,
    that means that we don't have the kind of representation that
    is actually in--is supposed to be ensured to us in this
    country.
        What it means is that we will continue to see a growth in
    disparities. What it means is that we won't have the ability to
    be able to fully participate in the democratic process so that
    we can have policies that actually align with the issues and
    the priorities of our communities.
        Chair Butler. Thank you. And then Major Dowdy, I did have
    another question for you. You, in your testimony, spoke about
    the Allen v. Milligan hearing with the Redistricting Committee.
    Can you speak more about the field--the virtual hearings? I
    think you referred to them the virtual hearings, and the
    refusal as you experienced, to listen to and ultimately seek
    the advice of the participants in the hearing.
        Ms. Dowdy. And so, the purpose--thank you for that
    question--the purpose of the hearings is to allow the public to
    have input on what they hope to see with the drawing of those
    new maps. And I was in the middle of doing a redistricting
    fellowship with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.
        So, I was heavily involved in redistricting in the State of
    Alabama. And you heard a consistent beat of a drum at every
    hearing. No one said anything that was not centered around give
    Black voters--give Black people--Black Alabamians another seat
    at the table. Give us a second district where we can elect the
    candidate of our choice.
        So, our Reapportionment Committee, they heard that over and
    over and over again. I spoke on that. Anyone who spoke in my
    city spoke on that, and you heard the same narrative across the
    State. And so, they went and drew the maps and basically
    ignored what they--their constituents of the State wanted and
    what we needed.
        And we even had elected officials testified to the same
    thing. You had State Senators and State Representatives that
    also spoke in their local districts about the need for us to
    have another representative at the table.
        Right now, if there's anything that's going on in our
    State, anything I want to encourage a Congress Member to do, I
    know that reaching out to my--the Republicans in the Congress
    that represent Alabama. I know that I basically will be
    ignored. Through my sorority once a year, we have Delta Days,
    and we go and meet with our elected officials.
        And the ones who don't look like me, they typically tend to
    somewhat ignore us when we are in there letting them know what
    our legislative priorities are. And Congresswoman Terri Sewell,
    she's basically the Congress--the lone Congresswoman for the
    entire State when it comes to Black residents.
        And so, that was the narrative. Give us a second district.
    They chose to ignore us. And even now with SB1, there were
    about 30 plus people signed up to speak, to include myself. I
    decided to not attend law school that day, and I decided that
    coming to speak at the Capitol to my elected officials was more
    important. And I did not even have the opportunity to speak.
    And when you have a public hearing, you have individuals
    traveling from all across your State.
        And so, our elected officials even now, are choosing to
    ignore us and silence us in the process of making sure that our
    voices are heard in their decisionmaking process.
        Chair Butler. Thank you for that. I know we are about at
    time and I want to honor everyone's time commitments here,
    particularly given how treacherous the weather sounds. Just one
    last question that may sound obvious, but I want to ask it on
    purpose, Ms. Hattix, if you would just sort of close us out on
    SB1. Do you think that it would have a negative impact on
    voters of color in Alabama? And if so, how?
        Ms. Hattix. Thank you so much for the question Chair
    Butler. One thing that we have heard continuously from the
    public hearings and from the elected officials who are
    proposing this bill, is that this would not impact activities.
        But we actually have history to show the contrary. We have
    data to show the contrary. And I think in light of the moment
    we're in, it's important to talk about in the 1960's, there was
    two women in Alabama who were working to register people to
    vote, specifically Black Alabamians, who were disabled and
    illiterate and under similar circumstances to what SB1 is
    proposing to criminalize, these two Black elderly women were
    not only arrested, but prosecuted and sent to prison for their
    activities in assisting absentee ballots to be counted.
        And so, when we talk about the impacts of SB1, we're not
    simply talking about a hypothetical, we're talking about a
    lived reality. The fact of the matter is that many of the foot
    soldiers who crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge are not
    historical figures to us in Alabama. They are our neighbors.
    They are our grandmothers. They are living, breathing, walking
    people who are examples of not only the lengths that the State
    of Alabama will go to repress and criminalize people, but the
    actual resilience of Alabamians to stay here and imagine a
    better future for us.
        And so, the effects of SB1 are not just the potential for
    other people in this long line of history to be incarcerated,
    charged, and disenfranchised by the State, but the widespread
    chilling effect that this could have on civic organizations who
    cannot for very legitimate reasons, engage in what would be
    literal civil disobedience, defying the State's ban on
    assisting absentee voters because they would risk their jobs,
    they would risk their livelihoods.
        And so, it's not only the act of criminalization, but the
    message and widespread chilling impact this would have on our
    civic organizations to continue to get people to participate in
    our democracy. And that's a reality that we are not only
    fearful of but is rooted in a history that we know will come
    true if SB1 passes.
        [Applause.]
        Chair Butler. Thank you to our witnesses who are
    appearing--have been appearing today before our Subcommittee
    and thank you to you all who've come out to also be a part of
    this field hearing on the Judiciary Subcommittee of the
    Constitution.
        In The New York Times opinion piece that the late
    Congressman John Lewis submitted, and he asked to be released
    posthumously after his death. He wrote, ``when you see
    something that is not right, you must say something, you must
    do something, democracy is not a state.'' He said, it is an
    act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we
    call the beloved community, a nation and world society at peace
    with itself.
        Through today's testimony, we've heard how we're still
    fighting, how each of us are choosing each day to do something,
    and to do our part. I want to note that I am encouraged by our
    witnesses today because your work truly proves that each of you
    are willing to do the work, that each of you have been doing
    your part.
        And I am here because as long as I'm in the Senate, I am
    going to be doing my part, doing my part to pass the John R.
    Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act to ensure
    that the next generation can indeed cast their ballots without
    facing the discriminatory barriers, without facing the physical
    dangers and intimidation, without facing all the other methods
    of suppression that seem to be holding not only Alabama back
    but even my home State of Mississippi.
        So, while I am here, I intend to join you in doing my part
    in answering Congressman Lewis's call and all of us doing our
    part. Thank you-all for coming, and for being a part of this
    field hearing.
        The hearing record will remain open for 1 week, for
    statements to be submitted into the record. Questions for the
    record may also be submitted by other Senators by 5 p.m.,
    Eastern, on Friday, March 8, 2024.
        Today's field hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

    Submitted by Hon. Laphonza Butler:

     SPLC--Report on Modern-Day Voting Discrimination in Alabama......    70