[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