    [Senate Hearing 118-547]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-547

                           THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY:
                      PROTECTING VOTING RIGHTS IN AMERICA

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 12, 2024

                                   __________

                              Serial No. J-118-58

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                   [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    58-371                    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

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     1
    Graham, Hon. Lindsey O...........................................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Warnock, Hon. Reverend Raphael, U.S. Senator from Georgia........     3

    Hunt, Hon. Wesley, U.S. Representative from Texas................     6

    Camarillo, Lydia.................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    46

    Hewitt, Damon T..................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    53

    Lakin, Sophia Lin................................................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    74

    Riordan, Maureen.................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................   106

    Spakovsky, Hans von..............................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................   119

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................    45

                           THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY:
                      PROTECTING VOTING RIGHTS IN AMERICA

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2024

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
    G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
    Chair of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Whitehouse,
    Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, Padilla, Ossoff,
    Welch, Butler, Graham, Grassley, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley,
    Cotton, Tillis, and Blackburn.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Chair Durbin. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary
    Committee will come to order. Today the Committee will examine
    the ongoing assault on voting rights and the continued need for
    the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which Senator
    Warnock and I recently introduced with 48 of our colleagues.
    Before we begin, I'd like to turn to a video that demonstrates
    why this legislation is essential for our democratic rights
    protection.
        [Video is presented.]
        Chair Durbin. Last week, we commemorated the 59th
    anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama. On that
    infamous day in 1965, 600 Americans, led by a young John Lewis
    and Reverend Hosea Williams, were met by police wielding billy
    clubs, bullwhips, and tear gas as they marched across the
    Edmund Pettus Bridge to protest the disenfranchisement of Black
    Americans. Just months later, Congress finally passed
    legislation to protect every American's right to vote. The
    Voting Rights Act, or VRA, passed with 77 votes in the Senate,
    an overwhelming bipartisan majority. When the VRA was last
    authorized in 2006, not one Senator--not one Senator,
    Democratic or Republican--voted against the bill.
        Next year will mark 60 years since the Bloody Sunday and
    the passage of the Voting Rights Act, but as a result of a
    series of misguided Supreme Court decisions, there's been a
    significant deterioration of the fundamental right to vote in
    America. In 2013, five Republican-appointed Justices on the
    Supreme Court dismantled a key feature of the Voting Rights Act
    by throwing out the formula for jurisdictions subject to
    preclearance. Preclearance had required States and localities
    with a history of voting discrimination to submit any changes
    to voting laws and procedures to the Justice Department or a
    Federal judicial panel for review. Congress repeatedly
    reauthorized that formula with bipartisan support, overwhelming
    bipartisan support, in light of reams of evidence demonstrating
    its continued value.
        In the days following Shelby County v. Holder, Republican-
    led States immediately moved to enact discriminatory voter
    suppression efforts. Voters now wait years for court decisions
    when they challenge these laws and have to endure elections
    with these restrictions in place even when they're later found
    to be violating Federal law. In 2021, the Court's right-wing
    majority continued its assault on the Voting Rights Act with
    its decision in Brnovich v. DNC, creating judge-made, more
    difficult standards for plaintiffs in voting right lawsuits.
    Many Americans fear that this attack on voting rights is part
    of a coordinated assault on our fundamental rights and
    institutions, as Government officials, including a former
    President of the United States, try to overturn an election and
    sow doubt about its integrity.
        We can restore confidence in our democracy by ensuring that
    every eligible American can vote without fear of
    disenfranchisement. Congress can do that just by passing the
    John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would
    restore the VRA. Some have suggested we don't need this law,
    pointing to record-breaking voter turnout in the 2020 election.
    But take a close look, and if you do, you'll see the racial
    turnout gap is actually growing in this country, fueled by
    these voter suppression efforts.
        In 2012, the year before Shelby County, the turnout rate
    for Black voters was higher than the rate for white voters in
    seven of the eight Southern States subject to Section 5 of the
    VRA. Eight years later, after the end of preclearance, the
    turnout gap has returned. Black voter turnout has fallen
    dramatically compared to white voter turnout in these States.
    Since the Shelby County decision, States have passed 94
    restrictive voting laws, including discriminatory laws that the
    Department of Justice had previously rejected under
    preclearance review.
        This includes laws that limit the use of mail ballot drop
    boxes, impose strict ID requirements, cut hours for early
    voting, and purge voters from registration rolls based on
    inaccurate databases. Voters in 27 States will face new
    restrictions on their right to vote in the Presidential
    election. And without the full force of the Voting Rights Act,
    their rights are at risk during one of the most critical
    elections of our lifetime. We must pass the John R. Lewis
    Voting Rights Advancement Act to protect what he called ``the
    most powerful nonviolent tool or instrument we have in a
    democratic society.''
        Senator Graham is unable to be here at this moment because
    he's attending the Judicial Conference across the street. Oh.
        Senator Graham. Hey.
        Chair Durbin. On cue, he arrives. So, let me recognize
    Senator Graham.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY O. GRAHAM,
            A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

        Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was over at the
    Judicial Conference speaking to our judges. So, the Committee
    is taking on reforming the way we vote. A lot of people on our
    side think the voting system needs to be looked at when it
    comes to mail-in ballots. There are accusations being made that
    people can't vote, in States that have voter IDs, fairly. I
    don't believe that for 1 minute. This bill is an effort, I
    think, to rewrite Federal law in a fashion that would make it
    harder for States to implement voter verification, that we're
    trying to solve a problem that I think doesn't exist. I think
    most Americans participated at the highest level in history in
    the last election. We had more people vote than anytime ever,
    anywhere.
        And you're right about voting. It is a cherished right that
    needs to be protected, but I don't see this as an effort to
    protect voting as much as it is to create a situation where
    States cannot, in a reasonable way, validate who's voting. The
    only thing worse than being denied voting, or at least equal to
    it, is somebody not eligible voting. And a lot of concerns
    about that.
        So, just think about how many times you have to show an ID
    to do anything in America of consequence. So, my State and
    other States have passed voter ID laws. They're designed to
    make sure the integrity of the ballot box, not to
    disenfranchise anybody. In South Carolina, we had record
    participation in the last Presidential election. 2022 was
    robust. So, you won't find much support for the John Lewis
    Voting Rights Act on this side of the aisle.
        Lot of admiration for John Lewis. He took a beating for
    making America better. So, we admire the name John Lewis and
    his heroic efforts during the 1960's to make America a better
    place, but I think virtually all of us, if not all of us, will
    see this as an attempt to rewrite Supreme Court decisions that
    were long overdue. My State has been under scrutiny for a very
    long time, and I am proud of the way we vote in South Carolina.
    We've come a very, very long way, and I think the results of
    our system and other States that have been under scrutiny have
    borne fruit, and the Supreme Court recognized that.
        This is something the left doesn't like but is real. People
    can vote in America, fairly, and the idea of changing the
    Supreme Court decision is not about expanding voting. It's
    about curtailing efforts at the States to protect the ballot
    box. We will be against that.
        Chair Durbin. Before we turn to our witnesses, let me lay
    out the mechanics for today's hearing. Begin with a Member
    panel. Each Member has 5 minutes in an opening statement. Then
    switch to our second panel. Once again, 5-minute opening
    statements from each witness and a round of 5-minute questions
    from each Senator.
        First, we begin with a statement from Senator Warnock, our
    colleague from Georgia, who has been an exceptional partner in
    introducing this legislation and has firsthand knowledge of
    voting laws at a State level and the impact they have on the
    actual election. Senator Warnock, you may proceed.

              STATEMENT OF HON. REVEREND RAPHAEL WARNOCK,
                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

        Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much, Chair Durbin and
    Ranking Member Graham, for inviting me here today. Across the
    country, the right to vote is under assault, and we must
    urgently pass voting rights legislation. I had the honor of
    serving as John Lewis's pastor. I presided over his funeral.
    But while I was his pastor, I'm very clear that he was the
    mentor. And 2 weeks ago, I was deeply honored to introduce,
    with Chair Durbin, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement
    Act, legislation named in his honor to protect the right to
    vote for all Americans.
        As the first Black Senator from Georgia, let me be very
    clear today. I would not be here without the Voting Rights Act
    of 1965 and its protections that enabled millions of Americans
    to have their voices heard in our democracy. But a series of
    Supreme Court decisions have gutted preclearance, a very
    important and powerful tool, and other provisions of the Voting
    Rights Act, enabling State lawmakers to roll back voting rights
    across our country.
        I have seen the results firsthand in my State of Georgia. I
    don't need anybody to tell me about it. I've seen it. I've
    experienced it. After the 2020 elections, partisan actors in
    the State legislature passed a sweeping voter registration law,
    S.B. 202, that made voting harder for thousands of Georgians.
    And let me offer just a few examples. I wish I had more time.
        After a record number of Georgians voted by mail, S.B. 202
    made it harder for voters to request a mail-in ballot, while
    also reducing the number of drop boxes to return them. I wonder
    why. It shortened the time for runoff elections, leading to
    fewer early voting days, which led to lines that were hours
    long. I wonder why. It allowed a single person--think about
    this: a single individual--to make unlimited, mass challenges
    to voters' registration. Who's changing the law in that case?
    Who's changing the way we practiced our laws and the way we've
    allowed people to vote? A single individual to make unlimited
    mass challenges to voters' registration--and in 2022, this
    allowed just 6 right-wing activists to challenge the
    registrations of 89,000 Georgia voters: 100,000 voter
    challenges, 89,000 of them put forward by 6 right-wing
    activists.
        And they have not stopped there. This year, a member of the
    State Election Board proposed ending no-excuse vote by mail,
    and a Georgia State Senate Committee voted to end automatic
    voter registration. I find it very interesting that the folks
    who say we need to make sure that there is integrity in our
    system--and I believe in that--and who put forward voter ID,
    which I support--I think often it's too restrictive, but it's
    interesting that the folks who say we've got to make sure that
    we verify people's voter ID would show up as opposed to voter
    motor laws, where you're using the bureaucracy and the regimen
    of getting a driver's license as a basis for getting registered
    to vote. Why would you get rid of that, if you believe in voter
    identification?
        Sadly, Georgia is not unique. Last year, lawmakers
    introduced over 350 restrictive voting bills in 47 States. Many
    of these efforts are only possible because of the gutting of
    the Voting Rights Act. Now, some argue that high voter turnout
    means there is no voter suppression. So, let's talk about that.
    Let me be very clear. People across the country turned out in
    the rain and the cold and during hours-long lines, and not in
    every neighborhood, some neighborhoods. We're entitled to our
    own opinions, not our own facts. It's a fact that people of
    color, Black people, stay in lines longer just to vote. But
    these people stayed in line not because there's no voter
    suppression. They just refused to have their voices silenced.
        I saw this firsthand in 2022, when Georgia State Officials
    tried to eliminate Saturday voting. They argued it wasn't
    allowed, in part because of a State holiday originally
    celebrating Robert E. Lee. And so I sued the State, and I won.
    They appealed, and I won again. We went all the way to the
    Georgia Supreme Court, where I won again. You would think that
    State Election Officials in Georgia would've been busy getting
    ready for the runoff election. Instead, they were spending our
    resources appealing the decision for folks to be able to vote
    on Saturday. I wonder why.
        Seventy thousand people voted that day, and if you only
    knew that number, you might think that voting is easy, as some
    of my colleagues want to suggest. What you would miss is how
    hard we had to fight for them to be able to show up. The fact
    that people voted does not mean all people had an equal
    opportunity to vote, and a recent analysis by the Brennan
    Center shows that, since the 2013 Shelby decision, the turnout
    gap between white and nonwhite Americans has grown. We're all
    entitled to our own opinion. These are the facts. The racial
    gap has widened.
        And it has especially widened in the places once covered by
    the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirements. In 1965 and
    over the decades since, Congress has repeatedly reaffirmed the
    Voting Rights Act on a bipartisan basis. In 2006, this very
    body reauthorized the Voting Rights Act by a vote of 98-to-0.
    President George W. Bush, a Republican, was President. Before
    us is the opportunity to advance that legacy by passing the
    John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to
    Vote Act.
        The Freedom to Vote Act, which many of my colleagues here--
    including Senators Klobuchar and Padilla--and I introduced,
    would create national minimum standards for voting, end
    partisan gerrymandering, and root out the influence of dark
    money. Meanwhile, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
    would restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act,
    including preclearance, to prevent future attacks on our right
    to vote. This should not be a partisan issue. The right to vote
    is preservative of all other rights. It preserves the framework
    in which all debate takes place. These bills would ensure that
    every eligible American has a voice in the direction of our
    country, from working families who need to vote after hours to
    rural voters who need to vote by mail.
        In conclusion--and nobody believes a pastor when he says,
    in conclusion--let me say that it's true all of us celebrate
    John Lewis. A couple weeks ago, many folks made that annual
    pilgrimage to Selma. You cannot remember John Lewis and
    dismember his legacy at the same time. If you celebrate John
    Lewis, support what he supported. He supported the legislation
    in front of us. The Freedom to Vote Act was written by John
    Lewis. If you celebrate John Lewis, pass the John Lewis Voting
    Rights Advancement Act.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Graham, you may
    introduce your witness.
        Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're honored to
    be joined today by Representative Wesley Hunt. He serves as
    U.S. Representative for Texas, 38th Congressional District. He
    was first elected in 2023 and serves on the House Judiciary
    Committee as well as the House Subcommittee on the Constitution
    and Limited Government. He received his bachelor of science
    from the United States Military Academy at West Point. After
    serving 8 years in the United States Army, attended Cornell
    University where he obtained a master's of business
    administration and public administration and industrial labor
    relations. You're a busy guy. We're honored to have you. Thank
    you very much.
        Representative Hunt. Thank you, sir.
        Chair Durbin. Congressman Hunt, proceed.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. WESLEY HUNT,
             A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (TX-38), WASHINGTON, DC.

        Representative Hunt. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking
    Member Graham, for having me here today to speak about voting
    rights in America, the country that I love dearly. More
    importantly, I'm here to talk about the left's soft bigotry of
    low expectations, because it's the Democratic party, not the
    Republican party, that thinks so little of Black America, of
    people of color, that they make the case that being Black in
    America means we can't obtain a Government ID to vote. And
    that's not only a ridiculous assertion, it's demeaning and it's
    insulting.
        When it comes down to it, many of my colleagues on the left
    like to pretend that we're still living in the 1950's. Well,
    we're not. I've got some good news for you. It's 2024, and I
    know what year it is because I've been Black for just over 40
    years, and I'm also the son of a retired lieutenant colonel who
    grew up in the segregated South. You see, my parents grew up in
    the Jim Crow South in the 1950's and 1960's, in New Orleans,
    Louisiana. Their next generation, my parents, had three kids:
    my sister, brother, and I. All went to West Point. All three of
    us. We all served our country in combat. And I sit before you
    today, as a sitting United States Congressman, in a district in
    a suburb of Houston, Texas, in a white-majority district that
    President Trump would have won by 25 points and I won by almost
    30 points. And that doesn't happen unless we've made some
    incredible progress in this great Nation.
        Now, my colleagues on the left like to say that commonsense
    voting laws, including requiring a Government-issued ID, are
    racist and discriminatory and burdensome. Do you know what my
    father had, back in the 40's and 50's, before it was even cool?
    A Government-issued ID. And in his footsteps, I too have
    multiple Government-issued IDs. And while that might be
    shocking to many people in this country, you may ask, how does
    that happen? It's very simple. It's personal responsibility for
    all Americans in this country, regardless of what you look
    like.
        Sitting with me today is my global entry card; my military
    ID card; my Texas driver's license; my Texas license to carry,
    because that's how we roll in Texas; my congressional card;
    and, of course, the good old-fashioned American passport. What
    sorcery is this? What am I, the Black Houdini? How was I able
    to pull off the impossible and attain not one, not two, not
    three, but six government-issued IDs? Personal responsibility
    in this country.
        I fought for this country as an Apache helicopter pilot, to
    protect free and fair elections, and having a Government-issued
    ID isn't racist. It's American. You need to have an ID to drive
    a car, to check in to the airport, open a bank account. You
    need an ID for basically everything, to be a responsible adult
    in this country, except for voting, apparently, according to
    the left. Black America does not need well-meaning liberals
    putting their arms around us and telling us how we should go to
    the polls. In fact, if you look at recent headlines and polls,
    you will find that Black men, specifically, in this country are
    more fired up than ever to participate in the next Presidential
    election. And I think I know why, and I'm really looking
    forward to these results.
        For the record, in the 2022 midterms in Georgia, it proved
    that election integrity and ballot accessibility can be
    achieved hand in hand. After the 2020 election, Georgia passed
    a voter election integrity law, and subsequently the Department
    of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia,
    alleging that the Georgia law is discriminatory and aims to
    restrict citizens from voting. President Biden even called this
    law ``Jim Crow 2.0.'' Really. In my humble opinion, referencing
    Jim Crow for commonsense election integrity laws is offensive
    to those who actually experienced Jim Crow, like my parents and
    their parents before them. In fact, the law wasn't
    discriminatory at all, because in the 2022 midterms, Georgia
    voters shattered voter turnout records across the State. And
    despite that record-breaking turnout in Georgia, the DOJ
    lawsuit is still pending. I suspect that it's because that
    record-breaking turnout resulted in a Republican Governor being
    elected in Georgia. But I digress.
        I'm going to say the quiet part out loud, which I tend to
    do. I have a lot of respect for John Lewis, but the John Lewis
    Voting Rights Advancement Act is not about protecting voting
    rights. It's about solidifying Democrat power nationally. It's
    about Federal control over State and local elections, which, by
    the way, is unconstitutional. It's about diminishing the
    security of our elections. And voter integrity laws aren't
    discriminatory. They are required for a functioning
    constitutional republic.
        I'm going to tell you today, I categorically reject the
    soft bigotry of low expectations. Black Americans and people of
    color are proud. We expect more of ourselves. That's what Black
    excellence really means to me. And above all else, we don't
    need a new solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Let me be
    clear. Making it to the polls to vote in person with an ID in
    this country today is a very low bar, extremely low bar. We can
    do it. White people can do it. Black people can do it.
    Americans can do it. And we should all want that, for free and
    fair elections.
        If you want to be on the right side of history, you should
    reject the Democrats' party's attempt to wind the clock back 70
    years, because I'm sitting right here in front of you, and I'm
    here to tell you, we've come a long way. Let's continue this
    progress. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Chairman. Thank
    you, sir, for having me.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Representative. We'll now switch
    to our second panel. If the witnesses for the second panel will
    start to come forward, we'll start shortly. I thank everyone
    for their patience. Let me introduce the majority witnesses.
        First, we welcome Damon Hewitt, the president, executive
    director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
    Mr. Hewitt has more than 20 years of civil rights litigation
    and policy experience, including prior leadership roles in the
    nonprofit, philanthropic, and public sectors, and he's led the
    Lawyers' Committee since 2021.
        Also joined by Lydia Camarillo--I hope I pronounced that
    correctly--who serves as president of the Southwest Voter
    Registration Education Project, a nonprofit organization
    helping millions of Latino voters register to vote. Ms.
    Camarillo previously served as national leadership director for
    the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
    MALDEF.
        Our final majority witness is Sophia Lin Lakin, director of
    the Voting Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties
    Union, where she leads a team of attorneys working to advance
    and protect access to the ballot. She has worked on many
    successful challenges to discriminatory voting laws across the
    country.
        Chair Durbin. Ranking Member Graham, would you please
    introduce your two minority witnesses?
        Senator Graham. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our first
    witness is Hans von Spakovsky. Is that close?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The claim that
    there----
        Senator Graham. Oh, wait. Wait a minute. I just--did I get
    your name right?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Good.
        Mr. von Spakovsky. We're good.
        Senator Graham. He's the manager of the Election Law Reform
    Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
    He was appointed by President Trump to the Presidential
    Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in 2017. He also has
    prior experience as a member of the Federal Election
    Commission, an attorney with the Civil Rights Division at the
    Department of Justice. He's a graduate of Vanderbilt University
    school of law and received a BS from MIT in 1981.
        Maureen Riordan. Did I get that right?
        Ms. Riordan. Yes, you did.
        Senator Graham. Thank you. Second witness. She is a
    litigation counsel at the Public Interest Legal Foundation,
    over 20 years of experience of litigation with the Voting
    Rights Act in the Department of Justice. She holds her law
    degree from St. Mary's law school and received her bachelor of
    science degree from Seton Hall. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you. If the witnesses would please rise
    to take an oath.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chair Durbin. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
    answered in the affirmative. And we'll start with Mr. Hewitt.
    Five minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF DAMON T. HEWITT,

     PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
                        CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW,

                          MONTGOMERY, MARYLAND

        Mr. Hewitt. Good morning, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
    Graham, and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name
    is Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the
    Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify this morning about the important
    need to protect voting rights by restoring the Voting Rights
    Act.
        The Lawyers' Committee uses legal advocacy to achieve and
    advance racial justice, fighting inside and outside of the
    courts to ensure that Black people, people of color, and all
    Americans have the voice, the opportunity, and the power to
    make the promises of democracy that are on paper real in our
    daily experience. The Lawyers' Committee will litigate cases on
    behalf of voters who are traditionally, historically, and today
    disenfranchised; voters who face the fiercest of voter
    suppression tactics. The Lawyers' Committee also coconvenes the
    Election Protection Coalition, the Nation's largest, oldest
    nonpartisan voter protection coalition, comprised of nearly 400
    organizations.
        Our work gives us a front-row seat to modern-day voter
    suppression. We see up close the barriers that voters face, and
    we understand the challenges that litigators and advocates face
    in defending their right to vote, now, over 10 years since the
    Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder. As
    Chairman Durbin noted earlier, the late Congressman John Lewis
    said that voting is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have
    to create a more perfect Union. And as President Lyndon Baines
    Johnson noted when urging Congress to pass the Voting Rights
    Act, he said there can and should be no argument. Every
    American citizen must have an equal right to vote.
        Senators, no eligible person of voting age, especially
    historically disenfranchised Black voters, should be confronted
    with barriers designed to make it more difficult for them to
    register and more difficult to cast a ballot. That's what this
    is all about. Nor should we be limited to participating in an
    empty ritual in which the ballots we cast are rejected or
    rendered meaningless by discriminatory procedures or
    redistricting practices, sometimes hiding under the guise of
    partisanship. Moreover, we should not be subjected to court
    decisions that systematically neuter the reach of longstanding
    civil rights laws. Yet, these things are happening with greater
    frequency, due to the weakening of the Voting Rights Act. The
    floodgates of voter suppression have been wide opened, and the
    health of our democracy has deteriorated with every passing
    election cycle.
        Over a decade since Shelby County, we know that the
    preclearance provision--which was so important, which allowed
    DOJ or a Federal court to stop bad things from happening before
    they happened, the prophylactic power--is what we're missing
    here. Just as Ruth Bader Ginsburg's famous dissent in Shelby
    County put it best, and it becomes more prophetic with each
    passing year--she said, ``throwing out preclearance when it has
    worked and it's continuing to work to stop discriminatory
    changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm
    because you're not getting wet.''
        Senators, voters of color are feeling the storm. Our
    country has gone from being protected under the umbrella of
    Section 5 to being drenched by wave after wave of voter
    suppression actions and tactics and laws at the State level.
    We're battered by headwinds from cases like Shelby County and
    Brnovich v. DNC and other cases that systematically cut back
    the scope and legal protections of the VRA. We are weathering
    the barrage of all of these State laws, all made possible by
    the gutting of Section 5, the heart of the Voting Rights Act.
        Our litigators face new challenges in defending the right
    to vote. Our election protection staff and our partners on the
    ground nationwide are working valiantly to help voters make it
    through the storm, but Congress must do its part. In the Shelby
    County case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that racial
    discrimination in voting continues to exist. Racial
    discrimination in voting continues to exist. That's an
    invitation for the Congress to act, and Congress can and must
    act by passing legislation like the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
    Advancement Act in its strongest possible form.
        In the decade since Shelby County, Congress as a whole has
    been derelict in its duty to restore the law. This is not
    rewriting the law. This is restoring the law to its original
    intent and force. And, ironically, Congress and this body, on a
    bipartisan basis, has repeatedly supported, reauthorized, and
    even strengthened the Voting Rights Act. So, what's different
    now? As this body considers new legislation to protect voting
    rights, I urge you to think back to the reasons why the VRA was
    adopted and passed in the first place.
        States with large numbers of people of color continuously
    passed laws to make it harder to vote. They targeted Black
    voters with surgical precision, coming up with ingenious
    devices to make it harder to vote: a maze of trap doors, even
    if the door itself wasn't physically barred. History is now
    repeating itself, unfortunately, once again. As the proportion
    of Black voters increases, we're seeing more of these ingenious
    devices, these devious methods, to prevent people from voting
    or just to make it harder to vote. The whole idea is to have a
    chilling effect on voter engagement, voter participation, voter
    turnout--all for the means of political power. When Congress
    passed the VRA in 1965, it knew it had a moral imperative. I
    urge this body to find that moral clarity once again. America
    deserves better. I welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hewitt appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Hewitt. Ms. Riordan.

           STATEMENT OF MAUREEN RIORDAN, LITIGATION COUNSEL,

                   PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION,

                          ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

        Ms. Riordan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members,
    and Members of the Committee. Thank you for your invitation to
    speak to you today. I'm an attorney with the Public Interest
    Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm that is geared toward
    promoting election integrity and preserving the constitutional
    right of States to administer their own elections.
        From August 2000, until the Supreme Court decision in
    Shelby County v. Holder, my sole responsibility was reviewing
    changes in voting that were subject to preclearance. If passed,
    the proposed act will once again give tremendous power to
    partisan bureaucrats within the Voting Section over the
    election procedures of every State and locality in the country.
        I began my employment in the Voting Section just prior to
    the Presidential election in the year 2000, and during the
    Florida recount, I personally observed attorneys within the
    Section faxing and receiving faxes from the DNC in the Gore
    campaign in Florida. The DOJ Inspector General report entitled,
    ``A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil
    Rights Division,'' is attached to my testimony, and it provides
    instance after instance of bad behavior by the Section, often
    racially motivated.
        For example, when the Voting Section brought a case against
    an African American in Noxubee County, Mississippi, the Section
    attorneys didn't agree with the prosecution. They engaged in
    horrific behavior and targeted a Black paralegal, telling him
    he was not Black enough because he had the gall to work on that
    matter. Abuses by the Section have also been really expensive
    to the taxpayer. The Office of Legislative Affairs said that
    between 1993 and 2000, the Voting Section has been sanctioned
    well over $2 billion. For an example, Lynn Johnson v. Miller--
    the Section was sanctioned almost $600,000 for collusive
    conduct with attorneys from the Voting Section and attorneys
    from the ACLU in review of the Georgia State redistricting
    plan.
        In Kinston, North Carolina, they objected to a decision by
    a majority-Black city council to dump partisan races. The logic
    of the objection was that Black voters in Kinston would not
    know who to vote for if the Democratic title was not next to
    their name. In North--South Carolina, they objected to the
    annexation of two people, two white people. They wanted to get
    into the town for sewer and water. They objected because the
    town couldn't show that they had annexed any Black individuals,
    despite the fact that none had applied.
        I'm also aware of the intentional targeting of the
    continued viability of the Senate--State Senator in South
    Carolina's district in the review of the State's statewide
    redistricting plan. Section 5 was a temporary provision, and
    the reason for it no longer exists. The Supreme Court in Shelby
    not only determined that the formula for Section 5 is
    unconstitutional, but it also questioned the need for it today.
    It made clear that only rampant discrimination on a wide scale
    would justify any formula for Section 5. The Court acknowledged
    the onerous burden that preclearance process places on a
    jurisdiction, and it will doom the constitutionality of this
    act's addition of a retrogression claim under Section 2.
        Attempts by some to use the retrogression standard
    disguised as a claim under Section 2 has already been rejected
    by the Supreme Court. And, furthermore, retrogression is not
    unconstitutional. Even the Department of Justice recognizes
    what's known as unavoidable retrogression, and this happens
    when an area of Black population moves or there's been an
    influx of white population or the minority population has
    become so infused within the county that it is no longer able
    to either maintain a minority district or create one. Those
    types of retrogression are not actionable under Section 5, and
    they certainly will not be actionable under Section 2.
        The Department already has a history of weaponizing the
    retrogression standard. When they disagree with a voting
    change, they will use miniscule statistical differences to
    claim retrogression. The Department's objections to South
    Carolina's voter ID law, based upon a 1.6 percent difference in
    white voters' and Black voters' possession of an ID, is a prime
    example of this type of nonsense.
        The States previously covered by Section 5 will also be
    targeted again by your formula, which reaches back 25 years.
    Twenty-five years ago, there were only certain States that were
    subject to the Section 5 preclearance standard. Those States
    had to submit every single voting change to the Department of
    Justice or the Federal court. Therefore, they're the only ones
    that will have a history of violations. Simply put, the act and
    the formula will not survive judicial scrutiny. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Riordan appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Riordan. Ms. Camarillo. Did I
    pronounce that correctly?
        Ms. Camarillo. Perfect.
        Chair Durbin. Please proceed.
        Ms. Camarillo. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman----
        Chair Durbin. You have to----
        Ms. Camarillo [continuing]. Durbin----
        Chair Durbin [continuing]. Punch the button on the
    microphone.

                     STATEMENT OF LYDIA CAMARILLO,

                PRESIDENT, SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION

                 EDUCATION PROJECT, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

        Ms. Camarillo. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Ranking
    Member Graham, and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Thank
    you for this opportunity and the honor to testify before the
    U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. I come before you in strong
    support of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and I
    thank you for this important legislation. I am president of
    Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. I have had the
    privilege of serving in leadership positions at Southwest Voter
    for over 25 years. I have served as a chair of the Texas Latino
    Redistricting Task Force since 2010.
        Southwest Voter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
    founded in 1974 in San Antonio, Texas by the late William C.
    Velasquez. Since opening its doors 50 years ago, Southwest
    Voter has registered 3.4 million Latinos. No other Latino or
    non-Latino group has registered more Latino voters than
    Southwest Voter. Southwest Voter has trained over 150,000
    Latino leaders.
        As William C. Velasquez began working in Latino communities
    across the southwest, he sought technical assistance from John
    Lewis while he worked for the Voter Education Project. William
    Velasquez gained the knowledge and skills he needed to register
    Latino voters from this legendary icon, a hero to all of us. In
    my role at Southwest Voter, I had witnessed States' enactments
    of laws to suppress and dilute votes, particularly of Latino
    voters and of other racial and ethnic communities. I have
    witnessed the systematic damaging impact of such legislation.
        Among other factors, repair of efforts to suppress the vote
    is costly. In Georgia, in 2020, Southwest Voter contacted over
    200,000 Latino, Black, and other ethnic voters whose ballots
    had to be cured to ensure their votes would be counted. In
    2021, Southwest Voter reached out to over 50,000 Latino voters
    with live contacts to ensure that they could exercise the right
    to vote in the runoff elections for the U.S. Senate.
        My perspective is also personal. Over several election
    cycles, when I vote in my precinct, located in a majority-white
    neighborhood, I am told that I am not registered to vote. I
    have lived in my home since 1996. This is consistent with my
    observation that voter suppression efforts often target Latino
    communities based on the assumption that if the communities
    included Spanish speakers, they consist primarily of
    undocumented immigrants. I have seen dozens of voter
    suppressions law that target relatively recent Latino
    immigrants who are U.S. citizens as well as U.S. citizens whose
    families have lived here for generations--indeed, since 1948.
    These are 12-generation Americans.
        My perspective in that--that many of these laws represent
    serious deprivation of the right to vote and has confirmed by
    Southwest Voter's history of prevailing lawsuits. Southwest
    Voter has won 210 vindicating the right, loses--I'm sorry--
    vindicating the right of Latino voters in multiple States. For
    example, in 2019, Texas was blocked, by an SVREP lawsuit, from
    purging 100,000 Latino voters from the voting rolls based on
    outdated driver's license or State identification information.
    These voters received their driver's license before they
    naturalized but registered to vote after naturalization and
    voted lawfully.
        Efforts to make it difficult, if not impossible, for Latino
    voters to exercise their voting rights have been dauntingly
    successful. The Latino community makes up 40.2 percent of the
    Texas population, while the non-Latino white community
    comprises 39.8 of the Texas population. Yet there are 27 non-
    Latino, white-majority districts and only 7 Latino-majority
    congressional districts in Texas.
        The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act provides an
    essential legal framework to stop discriminatory changes in
    election law before they can be implemented. The act will help
    vindicate the right to vote in marginalized communities,
    particularly in States with large Latino populations. We urge
    the reinstatement of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act and
    strengthen the VRA to help save America's democracy by
    protecting the right to vote for all citizens. In the past,
    Latino voters were blocked from voting by the poll tax. When
    the courts ruled this pattern of discrimination
    unconstitutional, the laws continue to be enacted to suppress
    and dilute the political power of the Latino electorate and
    others: literacy tests, English requirements, and long
    residence requirements, to name a few.
        Over the last year, 19 States have enacted 34 laws to
    restrict access to voting. This includes obstacles to vote by
    mail; new voter ID laws; proof of citizenship; and limitation
    to voter assistance, especially for those with limited English
    or Spanish-only speaking, visual impairment, and voters who
    need assistance when voting due to disabilities or age. For
    example, Texas counties eliminated early voting sites and
    reduced days and hours of operation, particularly voting in
    Latino communities.
        I urge the support of this bill, the John Lewis bill. We
    need it. Southwest Voter stands ready to work with the U.S.
    Senate Judiciary Committee to make sure that we move forward to
    ensure that we protect the right of every voter to vote. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Camarillo appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thanks for your testimony. Next is Mr. Hans
    von Spakovsky.

            STATEMENT OF HANS VON SPAKOVSKY, MANAGER OF THE

            ELECTION LAW REFORM INITIATIVE AND SENIOR LEGAL

            FELLOW, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. von Spakovsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The claim that
    there is a wave of voter suppression going on across the
    country that requires expansion of the Voting Rights Act is
    simply false. Efforts to enhance the integrity of the elections
    through reform such as voter ID and improvements to the
    accuracy of voter registration lists are not voter suppression.
    On voter ID, for example, the data is very clear that such a
    requirement does not prevent eligible individuals from voting,
    and yet the proposed legislation would treat it as a suspect
    discrimination practice.
        A 2019 survey by the National Bureau of Economic Research
    of 10 years of turnout data from all 50 States found that State
    voter ID laws ``have no negative effect on registration or
    turnout overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age,
    or party affiliation.'' Voters understand this. Polling shows
    they overwhelmingly support commonsense voter ID requirements,
    regardless of their race and regardless of their party
    affiliation. The Census Bureau reports that the turnout in the
    2020 election was 66.8 percent, just short of the record
    turnout of 67.7 percent of voting-age citizens for the 1992
    election.
        The census survey shows that there was higher turnout among
    all races in 2020 when compared to 2016, and the Census Bureau
    also says that voter registration in 2020 was higher than the
    2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections, when supposedly all
    this suppression was going on to keep people from registering.
    A survey after the 2022 election in Georgia shows that critics
    of the State's 2021 election reforms were wrong. The University
    of Georgia found that precisely zero percent of Black voters
    said they had a poor experience voting in 2022, and according
    to the Pew Research Center, Georgians cast more votes in 2022
    than in any other midterm election in its history, with Black
    voters making up 48 percent of the increase since 2000.
        In fact, in the 2020 election, when we were dealing with a
    pandemic, we had, according to the Census Bureau, the highest
    voter turnout of the 21st Century. Yet S. 4 would actually
    expand preclearance to reach every State in the country with a
    new practice-based preclearance requirement. As the Supreme
    Court has made clear, any requirement that States obtain
    Federal preapproval of election changes could be imposed only
    if Congress found blatantly discriminatory evasions of Federal
    court decrees, lack of minority officeholding, voting tests and
    devices, or voting discrimination on a pervasive scale. Those
    conditions are nowhere to be found in 2024.
        The provisions of S. 4 that overturn the Supreme Court's
    guidance in the Brnovich decision on the application of Section
    2 are also ill advised and interfere with States'
    constitutional authority over the administration of elections.
    S. 4 eliminates rational and fundamental factors that are
    essential to evaluating the totality of the circumstances in
    any Section 2 lawsuit. It also specifically amends Section 2 to
    include a coalition of different racial-or language-minority
    groups. This would change the Voting Rights Act from a statute
    intended to prevent racial discrimination to a partisan tool to
    protect political alliances and coalitions. That would raise
    serious constitutional questions over the validity of Section
    2.
        Existing Federal laws are more than sufficient to protect
    voters and ensure that they can easily and securely practice
    their franchise without discrimination, fear, or intimidation.
    Americans today have an easier time registering and voting
    securely than at any time in our nation's history, and election
    officials and voters are already protected from intimidation
    and coercion by comprehensive Federal and State laws. There is
    simply no need to implement a new, vastly expanded Section 5,
    and the changes proposed in Section 2 would change it from a
    provision to prevent racial discrimination in voting to a tool
    for political manipulation of redistricting and the voting
    process, intended to guarantee the success of one specific
    political party.
        It is not 1965, and there's no longer any justification for
    giving the Federal Government the ability to veto election laws
    that citizens and their elected representatives choose to
    implement in their respective States. There's also no
    justification for eliminating the ability of States to defend
    themselves from meritless lawsuits filed under Section 2 for
    nondiscriminatory widespread traditional election practices
    that have been developed to ensure both access for voters and
    safe, fair, effective, and secure administration of elections.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. von Spakovsky appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, sir. Ms. Lakin.

               STATEMENT OF SOPHIA LIN LAKIN, DIRECTOR,
                 VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT, AMERICAN CIVIL

             LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

        Ms. Lakin. Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Members
    of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today. I'm Sophia Lakin, the director of the ACLU's Voting
    Rights Project. Last week, on the 59th anniversary of Bloody
    Sunday, we honored John Lewis and the civil rights activists in
    Selma, Alabama who risked or gave their lives to secure the
    right to vote. Their courage, sacrifice, and determination led
    Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act, or the VRA, one of the
    nation's most successful pieces of civil rights legislation.
    But nearly 11 years ago, in Shelby County v. Holder, the
    Supreme Court gutted the VRA's most powerful provision, the
    preclearance system that stopped discriminatory practices
    before they took effect in places with the worst records of
    discrimination.
        This decision unleashed a flood of discriminatory voting
    laws across the country. Nearly 100 restrictive voting laws
    have been enacted since Shelby, and just this past year, at
    least 14 States have enacted 17 restrictive voting measures.
    Over the past 2 years, courts have struck down racially
    discriminatory maps in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South
    Carolina, and elsewhere.
        The ACLU and our many partners continue to utilize case-by-
    case litigation to protect voting rights. For its part, the
    ACLU has filed or intervened in nearly 100 cases to protect the
    rights of voters since Shelby. But this approach, including
    using what remains of the VRA, particularly Section 2--a
    nationwide ban on discriminatory voting practices--is woefully
    inadequate to address the enormity of the problem at hand.
        For one, unlike preclearance, voters can bring Section 2
    cases only after a jurisdiction passes a discriminatory law. It
    also requires vast amounts of resources and time. As we know
    firsthand, this too often allows States to keep discriminatory
    rules in place during elections against the backdrop of slow
    court processes, irrevocably disenfranchising the very voters
    the VRA was designed to protect. The ACLU's 10 active Section 2
    cases have been pending, on average, for 25 months, more than a
    2-year Federal election cycle.
        I want to highlight one potent and very recent example
    undeniably showing that racial discrimination in voting is very
    much alive and well today. The only appropriate response is to
    restore and strengthen the VRA, including preclearance. In
    2021, along with the Legal Defense Fund and partners, we
    challenged Alabama's discriminatory congressional map within
    days of its enactment and won an injunction blocking it 9
    months before the 2022 midterms. But even though the three-
    judge trial court held that the case was not particularly
    close, the Supreme Court put that ruling on hold during appeal.
        Ultimately, in its landmark ruling in Allen v. Milligan,
    less than a year ago, the Supreme Court agreed that the map
    discriminated against Black voters, violating Section 2--that's
    11 years after a Supreme Court majority wrongly declared that
    things have ``changed dramatically in the south''--in Alabama,
    the very State from which the Shelby decision arose. But it
    took 16 months to achieve this win, and in the meantime, the
    2022 congressional elections took place under the racially
    discriminatory map.
        It is impossible to remedy the gross injustice Black
    Alabama voters faced, having their voting strength illegally
    stifled, despite every effort under what's left of the VRA.
    This is an egregious affront to the promise of democracy John
    Lewis and other civil rights giants marched and bled for. And
    even after the Supreme Court finally agreed that Alabama's map
    was racially discriminatory, the State drew a new map that
    defied the judiciary and continued to discriminate against
    Black Alabamians, trying to yet again appeal to the Supreme
    Court.
        And the fight in Alabama continues as I speak. While a new
    map is in place for the 2024 elections, Alabama persists in
    defending its discriminatory map for future elections. This is
    one example among many, and we cannot stand by any longer while
    Black, Latino, Asian-American, Native, disabled, and other
    marginalized voters continue to be silenced. The promise of a
    fully inclusive, multiracial democracy hangs in the balance.
    Our current tools in this fight, while important, are simply
    not enough to combat enduring racial discrimination in voting.
    Congress must meet this moment by passing the John R. Lewis
    Voting Rights Advancement Act. Thank you, and I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lakin appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Lakin. We'll go the first
    round, and Members each have 5 minutes of questions. Let me
    say, at the outset, thank you for being here and being part of
    this historic congressional hearing. But I do want to say,
    before we congratulate ourselves too much about 60 percent of
    the American population voting, we ought to take a look at some
    European countries, which have much higher percentages. For us
    to be satisfied with 60 percent, I think, should be an
    embarrassment to us and not a source of great pride. We can and
    we should do better. Every eligible American should be voting.
    We should give them that opportunity, and that means making
    certain that the voting procedures are realistic.
        The University of Maryland teamed up with the Brennan
    Center and did a survey that they recently released of 2,386
    respondents nationwide. When it comes to the issue of voter ID,
    what they found, I think, is very eye opening. Congressman Hunt
    earlier brought in six or eight Government-issued IDs to
    demonstrate how easy it is to get a voter ID. They included, of
    course, the obvious driver's license but went on to include
    passports, global entry, and other things. If you're aware of
    those systems, you know that they're not free. You end up
    spending money to obtain that Government ID, and it's
    understandable that lower-income individuals are less likely to
    be in that position.
        The Brennan study with the University of Maryland found
    some interesting things, as well, when it comes to the easiness
    of using the driver's license as a voter ID. Twenty-one million
    voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current driver's
    license. Twenty-one million. Another 12 percent have a
    nonexpired license, but it does not have both a current name
    and a current address for that voter. Ninety-six percent of
    those with some discrepancy have a license without a current
    address. So, you move, and you don't change your driver's
    license--in many States, you can't use that as your ID to vote.
        When you look at subsets affected by this, younger
    Americans--41 percent of those between 18 and 24--currently
    don't have a driver's license with a current name; young Black
    Americans, 47 percent neither current name or address; 30
    percent no license at all, for young Black Americans. So, to
    say this is an easy thing is not realistic. And, of course,
    when they do the analysis, people with less education and lower
    annual incomes are more likely to lack a current driver's
    license. To say that this is somehow the bigotry of low
    expectations, I think, is insulting. These individuals, many of
    them, are just living difficult lives with a lot of demands.
    Ms. Lakin, have you run into this in your analysis of the use
    of voter ID?
        Ms. Lakin. Yes, Senator. Thank you for that question.
    Absolutely. And when it comes to voter ID, I would say the
    devil is in the details. While we all agree that elections
    should be safe and secure and free and fair and that voters
    should be verifying that identity, the truth of the matter is
    that in many instances there are voter IDs that are really
    difficult to comply with and that they are adopted with
    discriminatory intent and with discriminatory impact.
        And we have seen this, for example, in the North Carolina
    case that we litigated in 2013, which challenged a law that was
    adopted shortly after Shelby County. In that case, the State,
    following Shelby County, went ahead and changed the voter ID
    law that it was going to impose and, in doing so, dropped IDs
    that were disproportionately held by Black voters and left in
    the bill only those voter IDs that were disproportionately held
    by white voters. Ultimately, the fourth circuit ruled that the
    law targeted Black voters with almost surgical precision and
    struck down that law as unconstitutional.
        Chair Durbin. I think those were the exact words used by
    the Court in North Carolina. Is that correct?
        Ms. Lakin. That's correct, Your Honor--Senator.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Klobuchar. We call him His Honor all the time. It's
    fine.
        Ms. Lakin. I'm a litigator.
        Chair Durbin. Go straight to----
        Ms. Lakin. Hard habit to break.
        Chair Durbin. Mr. Hewitt, I guess they're telling us that
    we're living in the past, we seem to think this is still Jim
    Crow America, and things are much better off. And yet, since
    the Shelby decision, we've taken a closer look at the changes
    in State laws. And what do we find?
        Mr. Hewitt. What we're finding is the same type of surgical
    precision or attempts proximate to that. You know, I know, as a
    native of New Orleans, in the great State of Louisiana, a State
    where, you know, since the Voting Rights Act was adopted, every
    redistricting plan for Louisiana in the House of
    Representatives was rejected by DOJ or a Federal court because
    it undermined Black voting strength--and that pattern would've
    continued, but for Shelby County and the gutting of the
    preclearance provision--we see the same patterns that we've
    been seeing for a long time.
        And also, growing up in Louisiana, I know that in Black
    communities, certainly in my home State, people in Black
    communities tend to vote in person. That's how we did it. But
    during the pandemic, when there were new methods of voting,
    newly available or newly popularized--absentee or by mail or
    even, in Harris County, Texas, drive-through voting, which is
    in-person voting, but drive-through voting--what we saw is, as
    soon as Black voters started using those methods, all of a
    sudden they became a problem. All of sudden, there's some type
    of issue.
        It's that kind of surgical precision that underlie our
    desire and, in fact, our action, to file intentional
    discrimination claims in cases like we did in Georgia,
    challenging S.B. 202, because if you're challenging the very
    means that are newly popular with Black voters, you must have a
    problem with those Black voters. And so these patterns are
    repeating themselves over and over again.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of you
    for being here to testify on this important issue. I'd like to
    ask each of you a couple of very simple questions, in the
    interest of time, because we've got a lot to cover and little
    time to do it. I'm going to ask for a yes-or-no answer to each
    of these questions. What I'd like to do is start with Mr.
    Hewitt and then go to Ms. Riordan and so on and so forth.
    Again, answer with a yes or a no.
        So, we'll start with you, Mr. Hewitt. Do you believe that
    only citizens of the United States should be able to vote in
    Federal elections?
        Mr. Hewitt. We don't have a position about noncitizens
    voting in Federal elections. We believe that's what the current
    laws are, and so we are certainly fighting for everyone who's
    eligible under current laws to be able to vote.
        Senator Lee. Ms. Riordan?
        Ms. Riordan. I don't--do not believe they should be able to
    vote. Oh, sorry. I do not believe that noncitizens should be
    able to vote in Federal elections.
        Senator Lee. Ms. Camarillo?
        Ms. Camarillo. That's a decision of the State law, but I
    want to emphasize that----
        Senator Lee. It's a decision of State law, as to----
        Ms. Camarillo. State----
        Senator Lee [continuing]. Who should vote in Federal
    elections?
        Ms. Camarillo. States decide who gets to vote in various
    elections, and in Federal elections, I believe that we should
    be encouraging people to naturalize and then vote.
        Senator Lee. Okay, but you're saying that the Federal
    Government should have no say in who votes in a Federal
    election.
        Ms. Camarillo. I don't have a position on that.
        Senator Lee. Mr. von Spakovsky?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. As a first-generation son of naturalized
    citizens, I believe only citizens should be allowed to vote in
    all U.S. elections.
        Senator Lee. Ms. Lakin?
        Ms. Lakin. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in
    Federal elections, and we support and our work focuses on
    enabling all eligible voters to be able to vote and cast their
    ballot and have that ballot counted.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Now, here's the second question. And
    again, please give me a yes or no if you possible can. Do you
    believe that people who are registering individuals to vote--
    I'm sorry. Do you believe that people registering to vote
    should provide documentary proof of their citizenship in order
    to register to vote? Mr. Hewitt?
        Mr. Hewitt. I think your first question kind of answers the
    second. Based upon the applicable rules, Federal or State
    elections or what have you, we know we have to follow those
    rules. The question is, what's the impact of those rules?
        Senator Lee. Ms. Riordan?
        Ms. Riordan. Yes.
        Senator Lee. Ms. Camarillo?
        Ms. Camarillo. Voter registration cards and affidavits--
    when people sign them, people are signing under Federal--under
    penalties of--depending on the State, either criminal or
    otherwise----
        Senator Lee. Yes.
        Ms. Camarillo [continuing]. That they're----
        Senator Lee. Can I get a yes or no out of you?
        Ms. Camarillo. I'm sorry.
        Senator Lee. Should they or should they not have to require
    documentation establishing their citizenship?
        Ms. Camarillo. It's already redundant, in many States, and
    it's already being asked.
        Senator Lee. Mr. von Spakovsky?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Yes, all individuals should be required
    to provide proof of citizenship.
        Senator Lee. Ms. Lakin?
        Ms. Lakin. Documented proof of citizenship requirements are
    often discrimination. In fact, we sued the State of Kansas and
    won litigation on this issue.
        Senator Lee. Okay. I do find it troubling that these
    couldn't both all be answered with a simple yes. I think if you
    asked most Americans, overwhelming majority of Americans would
    say, yes, you should have to be a citizen to vote in a Federal
    election, and, yes, you ought to be required to prove it. You
    have to show identification papers when you board an airplane,
    unless you're an illegal alien, of course, but that's a
    different question; to go to the doctor, in many instances; to
    pick up prescription, in many instances. All kinds of things
    require identification. Why not voting?
        Now, the Carter-Baker report from 2008--keep in mind that
    the Carter in Carter-Baker is former President Jimmy Carter--
    recommended that States require voters to use a REAL ID-
    compliant identification to ``ensure that persons presenting
    themselves at the polling places are, in fact, the ones on the
    registration list.'' And I agree with former President Carter
    on that, and to that end, I've authored legislation that would
    allow States to enforce such identification laws, which are so
    popular among Americans, and with good reason.
        The legislation, as compared to the likely unconstitutional
    John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, would respect the
    boundaries of Federalism. And that's important, always, that we
    do that--and that that's one of our twin structural safeguards
    in the Constitution. Mr. von Spakovsky, in your experience,
    would more robust voter ID laws disenfranchise legal voters?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. The answer to that is no. And that's not
    my opinion. That's based on turnout data that we now have for
    more than 15 years, election after election after election.
    Georgia, for example's, ID law has been in place since the 2008
    election. They've seen record registration and turnout of all
    voters, including Black and Hispanic voters there. And all the
    studies--one of the ones I cited showed that when you compare
    all 50 States, IDs do not keep people from voting, particularly
    because every State that's put in an ID requirement will
    provide a free ID to anyone who doesn't have one.
        Senator Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you to our witnesses today. Ms. Camarillo, you testified that
    just last year alone, over 19 States enacted laws to restrict
    access to voting, making it more difficult for people--
    specifically, in many instances, people of color--to vote.
    Could you talk about which voting restrictions you've seen that
    particularly impact people of color?
        Ms. Camarillo. Well, I think that the restrictions for
    voting are--in Texas, particularly, I think we find that a lot
    of--some voters are not able to vote because they cannot have
    an assistant. They're not able to vote--and by an assister,
    it's an--they call it an assister. These voters need to take
    someone because they can't either--they cannot read, they don't
    speak the language, or they're visually impaired, or they
    simply need someone to help them maneuver the voting system.
    And that is no longer allowed. We found that when S.B. 1, which
    is the case that I'm referring to--many voters were confused,
    were scared that they were not going to be given an
    opportunity. And there's also a partisan piece where partisans
    can walk into the booth where you're voting and stand in front
    of your face and intimidate the voter. It's a strategy to
    intimidate the voter.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
        Ms. Camarillo. That's one. I've also seen where voters--I'm
    sorry. You were going to ask----
        Senator Klobuchar. No, no, no. Go ahead. I just have a few
    more. Go ahead, quick.
        Ms. Camarillo. I've also seen where voters have not been
    able to go to the precincts because they don't have a ride.
    They moved the precincts--the voting sites from their
    neighborhoods to other places that are far, and they don't----
        Senator Klobuchar. Yes.
        Ms. Camarillo [continuing]. Have a ride, and if----
        Senator Klobuchar. I saw that in Georgia, when I went down
    there, when we had our voting rights hearing with the Rules
    Committee down there. They move it.
        Ms. Camarillo. Correct.
        Senator Klobuchar. In Georgia, there was a different
    polling place for one voter from the primary to the general
    election to the special election, so--exactly.
        Ms. Camarillo. There's also tactics that we can't truly
    document, that I recorded in my written testimony. And it's
    part of my experience, where someone will show up to vote, and
    they're being questioned. There's a woman in Florida that
    Southwest Voter registered to vote, and she was told that she
    did not register in time to participate in that particular
    election cycle, when in fact she had registered to vote in
    August. So, I'm concerned about laws that are in the books that
    are hurting people to have the right to vote and exercise their
    right to vote. I'm concerned that there's an attack on the
    Latino community, thinking that we're all undocumented. And, in
    fact, as someone who registers voters and trains people to
    register voters--and we have registered 3.4 million people--I
    can tell you that voters that are not citizens will tell you,
    I'm not a citizen, because they don't want to create any
    problems.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you----
        Ms. Camarillo. Thank you.
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. Very much. Mr. Hewitt, when
    Senator Warnock was speaking, he mentioned the Freedom to Vote
    Act. As you know, there are a number of bills in there that
    would supplement the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,
    including the Same Day Registration Act, something that has led
    Minnesota, year after year after year, to have the highest
    voter turnout in the country--a number of voter turnout,
    including with our minority communities, that a lot of States
    would like to see. The Save Voters Act prohibits States from
    unfairly purging people from voting rolls. Do you agree that,
    in order to protect Americans' right to vote, we need the John
    Lewis bill and also the Freedom to Vote Act? And could you talk
    a bit about the Freedom to Vote Act?
        Mr. Hewitt. Sure. I know there's a hearing, obviously, in
    Senate Rules later today about Freedom to Vote----
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you for giving us a pre-
    advertisement for that.
        Mr. Hewitt. There you go. There you go. And I'll be there
    to visit with you all. But, you know, we came to the
    understanding, in the civil rights community, that there is a
    double value to having the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement
    Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, which some people say is a law
    just about election administration, but it's really about--it
    really mirrors, in many ways, the John Lewis bill, because the
    John Lewis bill and the VRA itself is about all of these kind
    of death by a thousand cuts, these things that seem innocuous,
    that seem facially neutral, that seem little--then lead to
    voter disenfranchisement.
        And that's how I think about the Freedom to Vote Act, you
    know, when we think about election administration, about all of
    the provisions of that bill that really make it easier for
    people to vote, right? So, the John Lewis bill is about how we
    should not make it harder for people to vote. The Freedom to
    Vote Act is about, how do we make it easier for people to vote
    in a safe way and a righteous way, in a way that's entirely
    legal and lawful? And so I think that the twin force of those
    bills really is the call, the invitation to Congress and to the
    Senate, in particular, to act.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. von Spakovsky,
    what would you say this legislation's about? What do you think
    the goal of this legislation is?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, bringing back preclearance is to
    give the very partisan bureaucrats inside the Voting Section,
    where I first worked when I got to the Justice Department,
    basically control over State elections. And a lot of groups
    don't want to have to go to court like other litigants and
    actually prove a case, prove discrimination. They would rather
    be able to call their friends and former colleagues, who are
    now working in the Voting Section, and say, you know, we really
    don't like this particular bill. You should object to it. And
    that's the kind of thing that Ms. Riordan and I saw happening
    when we were there.
        Senator Graham. Ms. Riordan, you gave examples of this part
    of the Department of Justice being sanctioned. You know, in
    simple terms, it seems to be that people in this Section are
    more on a political crusade than they are enforcing the law. Is
    that a fair statement?
        Ms. Riordan. That's definitely a fair statement. My very
    first day in the Section, when I was being walked around and
    introduced, there were political, you know, campaign type signs
    for the Gore-Lieberman ticket. It was in the year 2000.
    Obviously, you know, infraction of the Hatch Act. When Barack
    Obama won the election in 2008--I come in very early in the
    morning--somebody had smashed the picture of George W. Bush and
    taken a picture of Barack Obama out of, like, the newspaper and
    pasted it to the frame. If they don't like the politics of a
    particular State, they target them. There were signs on doors
    that said, ``Mess with Texas.'' It is very, very political. I
    was shocked at how political it is.
        Senator Graham. Yes. Well, I guess we shouldn't be. Are you
    familiar with the case of Kim O-G-G--I can't say her last name;
    I don't want to butcher it--the Democratic district attorney in
    Harris County, Texas. She went to vote, but she was turned away
    because her ballot had already been cast. Are you familiar with
    that?
        Ms. Riordan. I heard about that on the news.
        Senator Graham. Yes. So, this is the district attorney for
    a county in Texas. So, the idea that we want to preserve the
    integrity of the ballot box, I think, is real. Mr. von
    Spakovsky, at the end of the day, the Supreme Court decision
    regarding preclearance was based on evidence----
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Yes.
        Senator Graham [continuing]. That States in question had
    advanced. Is that correct?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. That's exactly right. And, in fact,
    remember, Section 5 was put in when voter registration and
    turnout of African Americans in the covered States, places like
    Alabama--I mean, look, they were the subject of systematic,
    widespread discrimination. So, the registration and turnout
    rates were extremely low. But when the Supreme Court got this
    decision, Congress wanted to renew this bill based on 40-year-
    old data. They didn't want to renew it based on current
    registration and current turnout rates, because if they did,
    not only were the covered States as good as uncovered States,
    many of them were far superior.
        I just did a study on this. And, for example, in the 2016
    election, every one of the formerly covered States, with the
    exception of Texas, had a higher registration rate than the
    State of New York. In the 2020 election, six of the nine
    preclearance States had higher registration than New York, and
    four had higher turnout. New York, as you know--never been
    covered, but the point is, there is no longer any radical
    difference between the formerly covered States and the rest of
    the country. In fact, they do better than many other States.
        Senator Graham. So, if the data is that clear, then why are
    we trying to do what we're doing? Ms. Riordan?
        Ms. Riordan. I believe we're trying to take the States'
    rights from them and federalize all elections and hand a lot of
    those decisions to partisan bureaucrats within the Department
    of Justice.
        Senator Graham. I think you're right. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to
    thank all of the witnesses who are here with us today. Former
    Congressman, late Congressman John Lewis was a personal friend,
    and I was blessed to have the chance to cross the Edmund Pettus
    Bridge with him on several occasions, to stand at that bridge
    at the 50th anniversary and to hand to several of my colleagues
    a copy of what is now known as the John Lewis Voting Rights
    Advancement Act, and to press them to consider cosponsorship. I
    worked closely with our former colleague, Senator Leahy, on
    this legislation. I am from a State, Delaware, which has a long
    history of actually making it hard to vote and where, in
    Delaware, we have tried, several cycles now, to work to improve
    things like mail-in voting, same-day registration, and where it
    is actively being litigated. It is a contentious issue.
        Everyone seems to agree that John Lewis was a towering
    figure in the American Civil Rights Movement and that his
    legacy needs to be maintained. In fact, it was one of the very
    few moments in the State of the Union speech, Mr. Chairman,
    where Members of both parties stood and applauded when he was
    recognized by our President. Yet, what we should be doing going
    forward seems strikingly divisive.
        In the few minutes I've got, let me, if I could, Mr.
    Hewitt, just ask you--since the Supreme Court's decision in
    Shelby County, we've seen restrictive voting laws crop up all
    over the country, including some States covered formerly by
    Section 5. In 2023 alone, more than a dozen States enacted
    newly restrictive voting laws. Why did the Supreme Court's
    decision--briefly--make it more difficult to challenge these
    laws? And if it became law, how would the John Lewis Voting
    Rights Advancement Act protect against restrictive voting laws?
        Mr. Hewitt. Well, in the covered jurisdictions, the Shelby
    County case made it such that we no longer have, in this
    Nation, the benefit of the prophylactic power, the power to
    stop these negative laws, these bad laws from being implemented
    before they cause harm. But also, there's other damage being
    done, as well, by Brnovich v. DNC. And there's even, also, a
    case right now suggesting that there's a right without a
    remedy: that there is a right to not be discriminated against
    but no right of private action, so to speak. And so I think Ms.
    Lakin may have spoken to this earlier, but Section 2 litigation
    is not only time consuming, but it takes so long that the
    damage will be done, often, before we actually get relief.
        Senator Coons. Mr. Hewitt, if I could briefly ask one other
    question. In many hearings on this topic over many years, now,
    I've heard concerns and complaints about voter fraud,
    widespread voter fraud, being used as the reason to advance
    some of these restrictive laws. How many cases are there of
    voter fraud in our elections?
        Mr. Hewitt. The numbers are infinitesimally small. They're
    typically not associated with the voters who are pleading with
    greater access, and really, the fraud squad, as some people
    call it--they're really--you talk about a solution in search of
    a problem, that's exactly what this fraud squad is. They search
    high and low for instances of voter fraud, and they even try to
    entrap voters, in the case of Florida, and to saying, ah, you
    can vote now, but we got you. Now we're going to hold you
    subject to criminal sanctions.
        Senator Coons. Well, I'll say this. The integrity of our
    voting process is an important matter for all of us. I was a
    county elected official. Many counties across the country
    administer the election process. I do think voting integrity is
    important. But the point is, out of billions of votes cast,
    there are just a handful of examples of voter fraud. I wish
    this were a bipartisan issue. It was, when the Voting Rights
    Act was first enacted, and it was, every single time it was
    reenacted, for many, many years.
        Let me turn last to a concern that I think is timely and
    relevant and where there's bipartisan legislation being led
    that could help forestall a very real possible challenge to our
    next election. We've got the very real possibility that
    artificial intelligence-generated deep fakes, which have been
    deployed across the world--recently had an impact in an
    election in Slovakia that changed the outcome; had a potential
    impact in the Taiwanese elections, where they were widely
    deployed; in New Hampshire, on primary day, an AI-generated
    robocall of President Biden's voice encouraged New Hampshire
    residents not to vote in the primary election.
        Our own election is just months away, and I think we need
    to act now to protect against the predictably harmful effects
    that deceptive AI could have on our democracy. Senators
    Klobuchar and Hawley, Collins, and I have introduced a
    bipartisan Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act, which would
    ban the use of materially deceptive AI-generated voice or audio
    of a candidate for Federal office in a way that would impact
    the election or steer contributions. Ms. Lakin, do you agree
    that AI does, in fact, pose some threat to our elections?
        Ms. Lakin. Senator, I think that the risk of misinformation
    and confusion is very real and that voters need to have
    accurate, correct information in order to be able to
    participate in our democracy.
        Senator Coons. Given that there are very, very few cases,
    relative to the number of votes cast, of actual voter fraud,
    but there have been demonstrated cases of foreign nations
    attempting to interfere in and influence our elections--and
    there's recently been a national election determined,
    influenced significantly by a deep-fake AI--do you think it's
    important for us to pass bipartisan legislation like the
    Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act, before our own
    elections this fall?
        Ms. Lakin. It's certainly a concern that this Congress
    should be looking at very, very closely.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. And thank you to all the
    witnesses today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Coons. Senator Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. Hans, I'm going to start with you. The
    goal of Federal elections is to ensure that every U.S. citizen
    who is eligible and registered to vote should have the
    opportunity to cast a vote in an election if they so choose.
    Americans need to have confidence in our elections. The
    integrity of our elections is paramount to confidence in our
    democracy, and the votes reflect the voice of the American
    people. So, what safeguards are in place to ensure ineligible
    noncitizens don't end up on the voter rolls? And are current
    measure in place to satisfy this position?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, unfortunately, there aren't a lot
    of safeguards in place. I mean, one of the only ones around is
    what's called the SAVE System. That's a database at the
    Department of Homeland Security. It's the same database
    employers can check with and State agencies can check with, to
    make sure that someone is a citizen, is somebody who's entitled
    to apply for welfare benefits. The problem has been for many
    years that DHS has thrown up red tape and made it almost
    impossible for election officials to be able to consult the
    SAVE database to check the citizenship status of individuals on
    the voter registration list.
        About the only other thing States can do--because they're
    not requiring proof of citizenship, and there's some bad law on
    that--is to use jury information. A great amendment to the NVRA
    would be--you know, right now, the NVRA requires all U.S.
    attorneys to notify State election officials if someone is
    convicted of a felony in Federal court, in order--the State to
    be able to take that into account if felons are not able to
    vote. A great amendment would be to say that all Federal courts
    have to notify State election officials when an individual is
    called for jury duty and is excused because they're not a U.S.
    citizen. Why? Because the courts get their voter lists from
    State election officials. They use voter registration lists.
    But other than that, there's hardly anything out there States
    can do to check this.
        Senator Grassley. Hans, do you think that the John Lewis
    Act would be constitutional or unconstitutional by the courts?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Oh, I think it would raise serious
    constitutional questions about the validity now of Section 2,
    if the changes are made, and I don't think that the bringing
    back of Section 5 meets the standards that've been laid out by
    the Supreme Court for showing widespread, systematic
    discrimination that would justify treating some States
    differently than others or justifying Federal control over what
    is, in essence, State sovereignty and the State ability to
    administer their elections.
        Senator Grassley. Ms. Riordan, I'd like to have you comment
    on a question that another witness spoke to. If this voting
    rights bill were to become law, so-called preclearance would be
    reinstated. Can you explain why preclearance is problematic
    here and why Section 5 was meant to only be temporary?
        Ms. Riordan. Sure. Well, I think the Shelby County decision
    is illustrative of the issues. As Mr. von Spakovsky has already
    stated, during that case, the Supreme Court said that Section 5
    was temporary, and it was temporary for a reason, right?
    Because we no longer have rampant discrimination in this
    country, and we no longer have evasion of court decrees, which
    is what was happening, you know, during the time that Section 5
    was imposed.
        If we redo this formula, if the Senate does this and it
    passed, and it goes back to the Department of Justice, there
    will definitely be a weaponization of the preclearance process
    by the Department of Justice. They've done it for the 20 years
    I was present at the office, so I don't have any reason to
    believe that that's not going to continue. And if this rampant
    discrimination that everyone talks about actually exists, why
    is it, then, that the Department of Justice has only brought
    nine Section 2 cases since the Shelby County decision? They are
    supposed to be the one group that has, you know, the foresight
    and all the money of the Federal Government to bring these
    Section 2 lawsuits that are so expensive, yet there's only been
    nine since 2013. That's not even one a year.
        Senator Grassley. Isn't it ironic, in the 2020 election,
    the massive increase we had turned out in the election, and
    then to hear complaints about voter suppression? I yield the
    floor.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Welch.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. von
    Spakovsky, do you think that the 2020 Presidential election was
    rigged?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Senator, that election's over with.
    There were no cases proven in court to show that it should be
    overturned, as happened in the--for example, the 2018
    congressional race, the ninth circuit. So, what we should be
    doing is looking forward to try to fix the vulnerabilities that
    we do know exist in the system.
        Senator Welch. So, what's your answer?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. I just gave you an answer. Joe Biden is
    the President. He was certified as the President. There were no
    cases in court proven----
        Senator Welch. So----
        Mr. von Spakovsky [continuing]. To show that there was the
    kind of fraud that would've overturned the election. That's the
    way that, as you know, it works. In the ninth----
        Senator Welch. All right. So, let me----
        Mr. von Spakovsky. In the Ninth Circuit----
        Senator Welch. Let me----
        Mr. von Spakovsky [continuing]. Of North Carolina----
        Senator Welch. Let me be clear.
        Mr. von Spakovsky [continuing]. It----
        Senator Welch. Let----
        Mr. von Spakovsky [continuing]. That happened----
        Senator Welch. So, the 2020 election was not rigged?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Was what?
        Senator Welch. Not rigged.
        Mr. von Spakovsky. I've given you my answer on this,
    Senator.
        Senator Welch. You know what? I don't understand a word you
    said. Seriously. This is, for most folks, a yes or no----
        Mr. von Spakovsky. I'll be happy to explain. If you have a
    case in which you believe that an election was wrongly decided,
    as----
        Senator Welch. And I don't have much time.
        Mr. von Spakovsky [continuing]. Happened in the 9th
    Congressional District----
        Senator Welch. I don't have much time, so----
        Mr. von Spakovsky [continuing]. You go to court, and you
    prove your case. That didn't happen in the 2020 election.
        Senator Welch. So, do you believe that a lot of those legal
    challenges--I guess only one was upheld--it was a proper
    decision by the courts to throw all those challenges out?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. I don't have all those cases in front of
    me, and I haven't----
        Senator Welch. Well, here's----
        Mr. von Spakovsky [continuing]. Reviewed all--I haven't----
        Senator Welch. Here's what I'm getting at.
        Mr. von Spakovsky [continuing]. Reviewed all the cases.
        Senator Welch. Here's what I'm getting at. There's a
    subtext here, and the subtext is whether there's going to be
    ongoing challenges, and there's a certain person running for
    President right now who's already talking about--still talking
    about that as being rigged. And election integrity that you're
    talking about includes getting rid of what has been a
    significant protection, in Shelby County, with preclearance.
        Also, my understanding--maybe, Mr. Hewitt, you can describe
    this--is that since Shelby, there have been numerous
    restrictive voting statutes passed in various States. Can you
    just comment on that?
        Mr. Hewitt. Well, sure. And I think the record's very clear
    on that. We've heard testimony earlier today. There's something
    just very strange, whether it's political opportunity or some
    coordinated effort, that all of a sudden, around the nation, we
    see so many restrictive voting laws all of a sudden.
        Senator Welch. By the way, my understanding from the
    Brennan Center study is that the incident rate of voter fraud
    is about .0003 percent. Does that conform to what you
    understand the data says?
        Mr. Hewitt. It does. I described it earlier as
    infinitesimally small, and you've given some metrics to that.
        Senator Welch. All right. So, a lot of these voter
    restriction laws sound valid but have--they sound okay,
    neutral, which, of course, is what was the case with a lot of
    the Jim Crow provisions that prevented so many people from
    voting for so long. It appeared on its face to be neutral, like
    voter ID laws. But if that is the incidence of fraud--.0003--it
    seems to me that many of these laws that make it a little bit
    more onerous for people to vote are laws in search of a
    problem. Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Hewitt. I would wholeheartedly agree.
        Senator Welch. I want to talk a little bit, too, about--
    this is a slightly different topic, but reenfranchisement laws.
    Vermont, actually, and Maine are two States that allow felons
    to vote. Many States have laws that allow a person who's
    completed his or her sentence to vote. I think that's
    important, because I think voting is an action, a decision, but
    the process of voting is engagement, civic engagement, talking
    with your neighbors, talking with your friends about your point
    of view, about how you can build community through civic
    action. I'll ask you, Ms. Lakin, do you have any views on the
    importance of including the opportunity for people to vote
    who've completed their sentences?
        Ms. Lakin. Thank you for that question. We absolutely
    support the restoration of rights for people who have been
    convicted of felonies or other crimes. These laws, these felon
    disenfranchisement laws, have been rooted in Jim Crow and
    unfortunately have continuing impacts on the ability of
    communities of color in this country to be able to have their
    voices heard, particularly after they've completed their
    sentences.
        Senator Welch. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. Would you raise your hand if you believe
    that our existing voting laws are rigged to the detriment of
    African Americans and persons of color? I don't see any hands.
    I agree with you.
        I don't know really where to start. I'm not sure what the
    John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is supposed to try to
    solve, if you don't believe that the current system is rigged
    against African Americans or persons of color. What it does
    look like, to me, is an enormous power grab by the Federal
    Government, to the detriment of the States like mine, like
    Texas. I think one of the ways that people get sucked into this
    argument is this idea that Shelby County v. Holder somehow
    decimated the Voting Rights Act. We know that's false.
        In fact, I voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. I
    believe someone mentioned it was 98-to-0 in 2006. But what we
    did point out at the time was our Democratic colleagues chose
    to say that basically this country was still living in the
    1960s. In other words, the data that applied to the formula for
    coverage for the preclearance requirement was not updated to
    current events, because I think, as has been pointed out, now
    we're seeing persons of color voting at levels equal to or
    higher than other parts of the voting population. We should be
    celebrating the success of the Voting Rights Act. It worked.
    And thank goodness it did.
        But in another sense, we've been fighting since the
    inception of this country for what the role of the Federal
    Government is. Is it a national government? Is it a Federal
    Government, with States having their own sovereign rights? And
    here, the Supreme Court said, there is no general right to
    review and veto State laws before they actually are enacted.
    That's what preclearance provided, in Shelby County. And the
    Supreme Court said, there is no right to that unless it's to
    remedy past discrimination. And what they pointed out is the
    Voting Rights Act did work and that now, as I said, the level
    of voting by minorities was at or higher than that for the
    general population. I think we should celebrate the success of
    the Voting Rights Act.
        But I have to ask you, Mr. von Spakovsky--and forgive me if
    I butcher your name. You're probably used to it by now. I know
    you've studied this area for many, many years, as Ms. Riordan
    has, as well. Do you trust the Biden Department of Justice to
    make these decisions?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. No, not at all. I mean, just to give you
    one example, when Arizona decided--you know, one of the things
    that I've recommended for years is that all States should put
    in audit requirements. You know, that's ubiquitous in the
    business world, and States ought to audit their elections after
    they're over, make sure that everything was done properly, the
    equipment all works, that they complied with the law. When
    Arizona decided to do an audit, the Justice Department suddenly
    said, oh, you can't do that. That's a violation of the Voting
    Rights Act. Well, that's ridiculous. Of course it's not a
    violation of the Voting Rights Act.
        But, Senator, you were saying, you know, what's the purpose
    of this bill? Can I give you one example of what I think the
    purpose is? It makes changes to Section 2 that would make it
    almost impossible for States to defend ordinary, regular
    practices of voting.
        And the example I would give you is that, you know, Arizona
    was sued in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court--
    the Brnovich decision--in which, why were they sued? Well,
    because, like the vast majority of States, they said, look, you
    have to vote in the precinct you're assigned to. And if you
    vote outside of that precinct, we're not going to count your
    ballot. That's the rule in most States. It's been that way for
    decades. And yet what the Section 2 change would make is to
    say, oh, if you are a State, are sued under Section 2, you
    can't defend a law, you can't claim it's not discriminatory by
    showing that this is a traditional voting rule that's long
    established and that has been used in the majority of States.
    That will no longer be a defense.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Butler.
        Senator Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding
    such a timely hearing. I want to thank all of the witnesses for
    joining today. You know, I came to today's hearing truly with
    an open mind, believing that free and fair access to voting was
    in the best interest of both parties and all Americans. And I
    did find one thing that I agree with Mr. von Spakovsky about.
    It is not 1965, sir. It is the year of our Lord 2024, and just
    because we are not being asked to count the number of jelly
    beans in a jar or bubbles on a bar of soap does not mean that
    States and local jurisdictions are not indeed continuing to
    discriminate.
        I held a hearing in Montgomery, Alabama just last week,
    learning about the restrictive laws that were being considered
    in the Alabama State legislature, targeting, in my opinion and
    the opinion of many legal scholars in the State and those who
    are being asked to serve under those laws--targeting
    communities of color, Black Alabamians, people with
    disabilities. And I would ask--I'd like to start my question
    with you, Ms. Lakin, about communities, people who live in the
    disability community. In Alabama's S.B. 1 that just passed the
    House last week, there are criminal penalties being proposed,
    with up to a decade in prison, for those who would assist
    someone who is living in our community with disabilities, with
    filling out and completing their absentee ballot.
        We heard the testimony of Laurel Hattix, in Alabama, who
    suffers from lupis and is unable to drive. She would be subject
    to up to a decade in prison if she gave her neighbor $5 to take
    her to the poll to cast her ballot. Now, we know that there are
    many millions of Americans who live with disabilities, just
    like Ms. Hattix. Can you talk to us about any cases that the
    ACLU find themselves in litigation specific to discrimination
    targeted toward people in the disability community?
        Ms. Lakin. Yes, absolutely. And thank you for that
    question. Unfortunately, voters with disabilities, for far too
    long, have been overlooked, and there is unfortunately an
    enormous cross section between voters of disabilities and
    voters of color, voters with low income, and the like. And
    we've seen these attacks, a similar attack as you've mentioned
    in Alabama, in places like Mississippi and Georgia, and we are
    engaged in litigation in both. In Mississippi, we have been so
    far successful in blocking a restriction on who can provide
    assistance to voters with disabilities in casting their ballot,
    which I think we should all be extraordinarily concerned about.
        Senator Butler. And I wonder what kind of political crusade
    it might be, to advance a person living in a wheelchair to
    access the ballot. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Hewitt, we also learned about the story of Mayor
    Patrick Braxton, who was elected the first Black mayor of the
    small town of Newbern, Alabama. I think Mr. Braxton's case is
    an example of the updated but undeniably discriminatory
    practices in evolution of State and local jurisdictions. We
    heard about Mr. Braxton, who was literally locked out of city
    hall after being duly elected the mayor of Newbern, but he was
    locked out by his formerly all-white city council and prevented
    from taking his seat. I would say, has your organization seen
    instances of this kind of blatant voter suppression, updated
    and modernized voter suppression, of election result rejection,
    that is happening across the country?
        Mr. Hewitt. We certainly have. I think the most marked
    example is not the January 6 insurrection but what happened
    before then, when the Lawyers' Committee and the NAACP sought
    to intervene in some 15 cases after the 2022 elections were
    over, where folks were trying to use the State courts to
    overturn elections. And sometimes they used extrajudicial
    means, as well. And so we needed to have an answer in the
    courts of law, because the court of public opinion is clear:
    that the election results were over and that we needed a
    peaceful transfer of power. And so we're very worried about the
    same thing happening at the Federal level, at the local level,
    and at the State level, once again.
        Senator Butler. Thank you, Mr. Hewitt. Mr. Chair, I'm done
    with my questions and yield back the time.
        Senator Booker [presiding]. I'd like to recognize Senator
    Blackburn for her questions. And----
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you.
        Senator Booker. And I also want to just take note that I
    have a lot of power now, because I'm effectively----
        Senator Blackburn. Yes, you do.
        Senator Booker. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn. And----
        Senator Booker. Thank you. I'm effectively the Acting
    Chair.
        Senator Blackburn. Senator Booker, if you and I had all the
    power we needed, we would straighten out this NCAA, NIL mess.
        Senator Booker. Amen. Hallelujah.
        Senator Blackburn. As well as a bunch of other things.
    Welcome to everyone. Thank you for being here for the hearing.
    One of the things I repeatedly say is we need to make it easier
    to vote and harder to cheat. That is what Tennesseans want to
    see: easier to vote, harder for people to cheat.
        And Tennessee has really made some great progress when it
    comes to addressing how they run elections. And so many
    different organizations, secretaries of state, different ones,
    have recognized Tennessee for having the most secure elections
    in our country. And, Mr. von Spakovsky, I think your
    organization is one of those that has recognized Tennessee.
    And, you know, making it easier to vote, making certain those
    votes are secure, is something that should not be controversial
    at all.
        Now, I think one of the things that has played a role in
    Tennessee is the fact that a photo ID is required. And I have
    to show a photo ID when I go to get on a plane, when I go to
    the pharmacy to get a prescription, when I go to a grandchild's
    school. If I'm checking in for an appointment somewhere, you
    always have to show a photo ID. And that is something--it's a
    basic security measure. But I know there are States like
    California, Illinois, New York--and they have not implemented
    that. So, Mr. von Spakovsky, I do want to come to you. Talk a
    little bit about how Tennessee is ranked number one when you
    look at election integrity and safe elections, and then talk
    about the need for a photo ID.
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Let me take the second one first.
        Senator Blackburn. Sure.
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Look, I just don't know why we're even
    still arguing about ID requirements. Like I said, they've been
    in place in many States since the 2008 election. All of the
    studies show that not only did registration and turnout not go
    down in those States, it increased. Georgia, one of the first
    States to put it in, has had record turnout, and like I said,
    that one of the reasons is--everybody keeps talking about, oh,
    people can't get an ID. Every State has put in a free ID for
    anyone who doesn't already have one, but Americans
    overwhelmingly have IDs. So, it's just not an issue, and the
    polling--look, Americans disagree, a lot of stuff, but one
    thing they agree on, and this has stayed consistent over the
    past decade, is it doesn't matter whether you're Black or
    white, Hispanic, Asian, or whether you're a Democrat or a
    Republican. Overwhelmingly, Americans say, ID is a commonsense
    requirement, because they have to do it every day.
        Senator Blackburn. And----
        Mr. von Spakovsky. On----
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. If I can interject right
    here.
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn. Not only do Americans overwhelmingly
    support that, then-Justice Stevens wrote, in the Crawford case,
    supporting----
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Right.
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Photo ID.
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Yes. He wrote the majority opinion
    upholding the constitutionality of it. By the way, that was
    over Indiana's voter ID law, and with the new law in place in
    2008, Barack Obama won the State of Indiana, the first Democrat
    to win it, I think, since the 1960's.
        On integrity, in general, in Tennessee, in 2021, The
    Heritage Foundation, where I work, premiered a election
    integrity scorecard. We came up with almost 50 different
    criteria, best-practices recommendations, on how States should
    handle their elections. And it covers everything from making
    sure you have accurate voter registration lists to making sure
    you have full transparency, so that observers of all the
    parties can watch what's going on. And then we rated each State
    according to their rules and regulations in place, and we
    continually update it. I think Tennessee now is at the top of
    our rankings, because they've made a whole series of changes to
    improve the security of the election process.
        Senator Blackburn. Excellent. Thank you so much. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Booker. You're very welcome. And just because of
    the power of the Chair, I'd like to first, before I go to the
    next Senator, recognize the members of Delta Sigma Theta that
    are in the audience, a service organization. And I'd also just
    like to note for the record, so we have this in writing, that I
    am in a position higher than Tom Cotton, physically, at least--
    and I think that's very important to note. I would now like to
    go to the next esteemed Senator, handsome and brilliant. I
    recognize Senator Cory Booker.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Booker. I've really appreciated the conversation
    from the panel, and more than you know. As I travel around the
    globe and look at developing nations and developing
    democracies--I've studied the work of Larry Diamond, who works
    at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford--I think
    that we have this clutch-our-pearls kind of attitude that
    people in power don't try to effect rules that benefit their
    power. That's the reality. And the brilliance of our founders
    was to try to design a government model where there would be
    checks and balances on that power. It states explicitly in the
    Constitution about our authority over Federal election laws.
        And that's why I'm sort of stunned here about all this
    conversation that there are not attempts in and around our
    country of people trying to rig the rules or benefit them. And
    this isn't a partisan issue. I look at gerrymandering in
    America, and it is ridiculous. Both parties do it. They try to
    design maps that I think subvert the ideals of our democracy,
    which is that voters should choose their representatives, not
    their representatives choose their voters.
        I was very frustrated that, in the Congress before last, we
    tried to pass a bill that would've created far more drawing of
    electoral lines, but it was blocked by House Republicans. It's
    not as partisan as people think, because when I was coming up
    in Newark, New Jersey, we had a very powerful political machine
    there. I believe they were doing things to subvert election
    fairness, and then Republican Chris Christie, who was the U.S.
    attorney at the time, stepped in to try to ensure fairness. So,
    let's be clear. It happens. We know that there are people
    trying to game the system in ways that benefit their dominance
    in the political system. It is the natural inclinations that
    our founders talked about.
        The Federalist Papers have extraordinary expositions on how
    power can corrupt, and we are trying to set fair laws to stop
    it. Gerrymandering is an example. Campaign finance rules--to
    me, it's outrageous to me. Even the Supreme Court said the fact
    that dark money could be drowning our politics, like it is
    today--they called for a disclosure of that. We've tried, time
    and time again, Democrats, to pass the DISCLOSE Act. No
    American really wants dark-money billionaires, potentially
    having foreign influence, to try to influence our elections.
        And so I'm not ascribing these issues toward racism. I'm
    ascribing them toward people that are trying to game the
    system. When the North Carolina--we already heard the quotes
    about designing something with surgical-like precision, to
    racially affect the election. If you look at the actual emails
    that they pointed to, of the legislators themselves, they were
    trying to glean electoral advantage. And their thinking was
    that Black people were going to vote for Democrats, so let's
    design a system to stop Black people from voting.
        And so that's the frustration. We're acting here like these
    things don't go on, like there aren't people always trying to
    game it, that are having real effects. One of the most
    frustrating effects, for me, is just voting wait times. I've
    seen people designing it so college campuses--it's harder to
    vote, there's less voting machines, and there are lines I've
    seen that are outrageous, trying to discourage kids from
    waiting on line. Well, the same thing actually happens in
    African-American communities. In Georgia, the data--and I'll
    enter the article for the record, without objection--no
    objection being heard--demonstrate the significantly longer
    wait that African American neighborhoods have than white
    neighborhoods.
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
        Senator Booker. And so I'm a little frustrated, here, that
    we who are guardians of our democracy not trying to get
    political advantage aren't trying to find ways to make the
    system more balanced and fair, because the system will be
    abused if we don't. I heard one of our witnesses talking about
    there being no--the voter turnout for African Americans. Hey,
    I've been psyched about it, but when you look at the growing
    racial disparities in voter turnout--the Brennan Center has a
    great point to this--these gaps are growing, because of a lot
    of this gamesmanship.
        And so in the remaining minute that I have, I just want to
    ask this, about this issue of the racial gap in voter turnouts.
    And, Ms. Camarillo, can you talk about the barriers that voters
    of color are facing that could drive the kind of growing
    disparities here and what we can do in a way to make the field
    more fair?
        Ms. Camarillo. Thank you. It depends on the States, but one
    of the things that they're concerned about is, A, their vote's
    not going to be counted, that the laws also are not allowing
    them to participate. If they're low income and they live in
    neighborhoods where the voting polls have been either moved or
    they're too far away, it's very hard. If they need to get their
    voter ID, sometimes they don't have the resources, or places
    are closed. And, frankly, in Texas, the attorney general at the
    time was Abbott--spent a million dollars to demonstrate that
    there was fraud, and he found nothing.
        So, for us at Southwest Voter, I have to say that, yes,
    there are more Latinos and more Blacks and Asian communities
    and voters that are voting, but we're not taking into account
    the organization and the organizing that is happening by the
    communities themselves, in spite of the violations and the
    efforts to block them from voting. In the redistricting case in
    Texas, we basically have lost five congressional seats that
    should have been Latino-majority seats, two that were weakened,
    the 15th and 23rd, and three that we should've gained. And so
    we see this over and over. And so in that case, I was asked,
    when I was deposed in our Senate Bill 1 litigation, isn't it
    true that you're going to be working in South Texas anyways,
    which is District 15? And I said, that's not the point. If
    voters think that their vote is not valued when it's cast, why
    should they turn out to vote?
        Senator Booker. Thank you. I'm over my time. I want to
    recognize Senator Thom Tillis next, and there's going to be a
    peaceful transfer of power now, something very important to the
    traditions of our Government. I hand over chairmanship to the
    far more senior Senator, more experienced, wiser, with more
    hair, Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. I'm flattered.
        Senator Tillis. I think I got recognized. I----
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes, sir, you did.
        Senator Tillis. Actually, I was just walking in, before I
    got seated, and you said you were going to introduce a dashing,
    handsome person. I said, man, I'm not even at my seat yet. So,
    thank you all for being here.
        I've got a little bit of history here, because my signature
    as Speaker of the House is on a voter ID bill from many years
    ago. I remember the negotiation vividly, because I said that,
    on the one hand, I think it's reasonable to require a voter--an
    identification. But then I was subject to loud criticism from
    the right, for also suggesting that HAVA documents and other
    documents could be used if, in fact, you didn't have a driver's
    license. I was criticized from the left, for saying--why do you
    think you need an ID? Some people just don't have an ID.
        I said, well, how about if we provide an ID for free?
    Because it seems to me having a valid Government-issued ID is
    liberating. It's how I get on an airplane every week. It's how
    I purchase prescriptions. It's how I fully participate in
    society. And so I don't really understand it, if the laws are
    one that tries to do everything that you can to provide a
    person with good access to an identification.
        I had to cast my vote early. I like voting early. I didn't
    have any problem with remembering to bring my ID with me, but I
    know if I hadn't, then I could've had other forms of ID that
    could've possibly given me access to the polls. So, I really
    just don't understand the down side for overcoming the cost,
    the accessibility, the number of other things--not to mention,
    I don't understand if you really don't want a Government ID, if
    you don't want a Government-issued ID, if you don't want to
    have access and fully participate in all that requires an ID,
    up to and including getting a hotel room, then why not vote by
    absentee ballot? If it's mailed to your home, you can cast a
    ballot. You don't have to provide an ID. Did that. Didn't need
    an ID. Last time. I voted early. This time, I voted early in
    person.
        So, I don't know what we're missing here and why we're
    making this such a polarizing discussion. I didn't have anyone
    tell me, with any statistical validity, that the law that I was
    passing--and the HAVA document provisions and everything else--
    were really being that difficult. And, incidentally, I did
    hear--I'm going to call you Hans, because I don't want to
    butcher your last name. I did hear Hans's opening statement,
    and I tend to--I'm a data-driven person. So, look, if there are
    injustices, I don't want that. I want to fix it.
        And, by the way, I know Senator Booker has left. An
    interesting thing happens when elections occur. When I was in
    the minority for 4 years, I signed onto and tried to sponsor
    independent redistricting. I tried to go to Speaker Hackney,
    who is a Democrat and the Democrat leader in the Senate, and
    say, we ought to try and get this done. They were against it.
    Now, fast-forward 3 years later, I'm Speaker of the House. You
    know what I did? I endorsed independent redistricting. You know
    what Hackney did? He finally supported it, but guess what? You
    know what the Republicans did? They didn't.
        So, what people need to do is take the opportunity when
    they're in the leadership to look their party in the eye and
    say, we need to end this cycle. There is a way to do it fairly,
    and there is a way to do it with political considerations on
    the end. But in the same way that voter ID laws have been
    politicized--and I'm not trying--what I want to do is maximize
    access to the ballot. If you can tell me how I can tweak a
    voter ID law and still keep what I think is a rational
    expectation at the time somebody's going to vote, the same
    expectation that's required at the time I'm going to go through
    security at an airport or to check into a hotel or get my
    prescriptions, count me in. I'll fix it. But I think that some
    of these discussions are politically motivated and
    unproductive.
        Hans, I know technology well. I can still download the
    voter files--and have, fairly recently--in North Carolina, put
    it in an Excel spreadsheet, an Access database, go through and
    find people that look roughly my age or the age of some other
    ethnicity based on a name association, and I can find a lot of
    people who haven't voted for years. Now, if I'm a smart person
    and I know that there are certain districts that are going to
    win by a couple of hundred votes--there are congressional races
    that are won by a couple hundred votes--I can guarantee you I
    can find a couple of hundred people, spread out over several
    precincts, who have not voted, and if I chose to, going in with
    my name or going in with their name, vote, and without a voter
    ID requirement, I could literally--I wouldn't, just so--my comm
    staff is watching. I wouldn't do this, but a bad actor could
    literally reverse the outcome of an election by abusing the
    fact that you don't have to present an ID. Do you agree or
    disagree with that?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, I agree. And, in fact, I wrote a
    case study about a State grand jury report that was published
    in New York, conducted by Elizabeth Holtzman, former Democratic
    Congresswoman who then went back and became a DA, and she
    released a report, entire grand jury investigation. That's
    exactly the way she found that, for many years----
        Senator Tillis. Thank you.
        Mr. von Spakovsky [continuing]. Elections----
        Senator Tillis. I'm cognizant of the time and the fact the
    vote's going on. Folks, people are interfering in our
    elections. Foreign actors are smart enough to take what I can
    do on an Excel spreadsheet and a laptop and do it at scale.
    Let's try and figure out how we get past the political divide,
    here, and recognize that this is a legitimate discussion to
    have about integrity of elections--so, not having a political
    hearing; have one with results. And, by the way, count me in if
    everybody, when they're in a position to make a change and they
    have the gavels--let's also work on redistricting. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin [presiding]. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank everyone
    for testifying on this really important issue, because
    practically nothing, aside from a woman's right to control her
    own body, could be as important as voting. And we know that
    there are all kinds of efforts, after Shelby County--I think
    some 13 States immediately enacted what I would deem to be
    voter suppression laws, and these take all kinds of forms. And,
    in fact, it's to make voting harder: anything that makes voting
    harder, such as changing the times that people can vote or
    changing where people can vote or restricting the kind of
    identification that can be used to go and vote. These are all,
    I think, efforts--these are all efforts to suppress people's
    votes.
        So, I have a couple of questions relating to what will be
    happening probably in this election cycle. I did want to ask
    one of our testifiers a question relating to the robocalls. So,
    this is for Mr. Hewitt. Last year, your organization brought to
    light a racially targeted voter suppression operation in the
    form of a robocall scheme. Probably these kinds of schemes are
    going to be utilized in this upcoming election season. I think
    they're pretty easy to do and maybe not that hard to stop. Can
    you, Mr. Hewitt, tell us a little bit more about the case that
    you brought? And what kind of robocall was it, and who did it
    target?
        Mr. Hewitt. Thank you, Senator Hirono. During the 2020
    election cycle, we received, through the Election Protection
    Coalition Hotline, 866-OUR-VOTE, calls from voters indicating
    that they were receiving robocalls in which there was
    apparently a voice actor, we later learned, who was hired to
    say something to the effect of, if you vote by mail, the
    information will be used against you to collect outstanding
    debt, to execute outstanding police warrants, and to force
    mandatory vaccinations. The kicker line was, don't give your
    information to the man. We traced this to a gentleman named
    Jacob Wohl and his compatriots who, we learned, on the cheap
    were able to send 85,000 such robocalls, and they tried to
    target Black voters.
        We filed suit under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
    These individuals were later prosecuted successfully and
    convicted, and we won on summary judgment, and we're going
    after damages from these folks, as well. We represented the
    National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, which had to
    divert resources to address these issues and reinform these
    85,000 voters about what the law really provided. That was done
    on the cheap. That was in the 2020 cycle.
        Today, the same robocall could be done in an AI-assisted
    way, and it could clone the voices of people like Barack Obama
    or Morgan Freeman or Oprah Winfrey or anyone who's of
    notoriety, and people can be fooled. And so we need protection
    from this. We won our case because that was found to be voter
    intimidation, but not all mis-and dis-info that's designed to
    chill the vote is going to rise to that level. So, we need more
    protections.
        Senator Hirono. Aren't there bills that have already been
    introduced that will prevent these kinds of robocalls from
    occurring?
        Mr. Hewitt. There certainly are some bills introduced which
    we could certainly talk about and figure how we can all rally
    around and support. There's also action by the executive
    branch, by the FCC, to ban use of robocalls at least in federal
    elections--AI-assisted robocalls, that is. And so when we think
    about how we make it easier to vote, and how do we actually
    make it harder to stop people from voting, we have to think
    comprehensively in this way.
        Senator Hirono. Considering that the Voting Rights Act used
    to be reauthorized in a bipartisan way for decades, and
    suddenly the Supreme Court decided to become very activist, and
    the Shelby County pretty much decimated the Voting Rights Act,
    and then they went on in another case to make it even harder to
    go after Section 2 violations--so, I do have a bill that some
    of you, your organizations, support: the Time Off to Vote Act.
    This is a bill that would require employers to provide 2 hours
    of paid time to vote. So, for Mr. Hewitt and Ms. Lakin, your
    organizations support this bill. Can you express or explain a
    little bit why you think that this is important, even in places
    where there is voting by mail?
        Ms. Lakin. Yes, absolutely. We definitely support this
    bill. There are far too many people in this country who are
    unable to take time off of work to be able to access mail
    balloting, which isn't available in the same way across the
    country. And so being able to, first of all, recognize the
    importance of voting, recognize the importance of employers to
    provide that opportunity for voters is extraordinarily
    important and increases access in a way that we absolutely
    support.
        Senator Hirono. Mr. Hewitt, would----
        Mr. Hewitt. We support----
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. You like to add----
        Mr. Hewitt. Thank you, Senator. We support that bill, as
    well. And as I talk to people in corporate America, we ask them
    to do the same, whether they're legally required to or not, and
    also lift up what they're doing, because their reputational
    capital matters. We want to mainstream not just the act of
    voting but also the importance of opening up pathways to be
    able to exercise that right.
        Senator Hirono. This bill already has dozens of sponsors.
    You know, can one of you submit the list of all the kinds of
    voter suppression laws that have been enacted across our
    country? My time is up, but maybe one of you can supply that to
    us, because voter IDs is just one of many, many ways that--
    dozens of ways that voter suppression is taking place in our
    country.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Chairman, and thanks
    to all of the witnesses for being here. I'd like to take my
    time, as we close out this hearing, to interrelate the problem
    that we're talking about today with the related problem of
    right-wing capture of the U.S. Supreme Court, an enterprise
    which the Center for Media and Democracy says is going to cost
    $570 million. Pretty darn big number to spend if you don't
    expect results. So, sure enough, it seems that they got results
    for their expenditure, and I contend that one of those results
    was the Shelby County decision. And I'd like to focus a little
    bit on the fact-finding piece of that decision.
        I think we all know--anybody who's a lawyer in the room
    knows that, as a general proposition, in the American system of
    justice, the facts get found at the district court level.
    That's where the adversarial process can be brought to bear on
    potentially false facts. That's where the parties who are
    charged in our system to bring in facts and present to the
    judge have the opportunity to do that. That's where appellate
    scrutiny of errant fact-finding can take place. And the result
    of all of that is quite a robust and honest fact-finding
    process in the United States system of justice.
        Those safeguards fall completely apart when, at the very
    end of the day, after the arguments, after the briefs, at the
    very highest court level, in the Supreme Court, the Justices in
    the majority invent new facts. Just as a procedural matter,
    they're not supposed to do that, and it's particularly
    frustrating and concerning when the facts they find are false
    ones. In Shelby County, the majority opinion determined that
    things had changed dramatically on racial gerrymandering, voter
    suppression, and other issues in the preclearance States--the
    ones that were under the rule that they had to submit new rules
    for clearance to a court or to the Department of Justice before
    they could proceed--and made the decision that this part of the
    Voting Rights Act was no longer justified by current needs.
        And that question of how much things had changed and what
    the current needs were had no foundation in the court or the
    legislative record. There were lower court determinations that
    pointed out significant voter suppression efforts in Shelby
    County itself and in Alabama more generally. What the court did
    was to take that statute and look at it as a facial challenge
    to the statute which got it by having to reckon with the
    judicial record that had been established of persistent voter
    suppression efforts. So, they just shot by the record that
    existed.
        That was supplemented by a Congressional Record from the
    reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, which was very robust
    and represented hours of hearings, enormous amounts of
    documentary work, testimony from experts and advocates and
    people in the preclearance States. And the Congressional Record
    was very clear that reauthorization was justified; that some of
    the techniques of voter suppression had changed, but even
    though some of the techniques had changed, new techniques had
    emerged, and therefore the preclearance process should be
    renewed. And that was accomplished on a bipartisan basis, with
    a massive bipartisan vote in both houses.
        And what the court did was simply pay no attention to the
    Congressional Record, to basically write it off. Well, folks,
    we're an independent branch of the Government. We've got every
    bit the right of the Supreme Court to decide what the facts are
    in a matter. We're actually the place where that decision
    better belongs, because if we get it wrong, voters can have a
    say about that, whereas if the Supreme Court gets it wrong,
    we're stuck with zombie decisions based on false facts that
    just persist and persist and persist unless and until the
    Supreme Court is willing to clean up its own errors. But it's
    hardly likely that they will persist in cleaning up their own
    errors, when they went ahead and made the errors in the first
    place.
        So, there's a test of whether or not this was accurate, and
    the test was real life. And in real life, as soon as the
    preclearance was lifted, there came an avalanche from
    preclearance State after preclearance State: over 100 pieces of
    legislation, sometimes targeting minority voters with what one
    court called surgical precision--surgical precision--to affect
    the election outcomes to the benefit of Republicans in those
    States. That is the background that bothers me. My time is
    expired on this, but I did want to make that point, and I thank
    the Chairman for holding the hearing.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Whitehouse. And Senator
    Ossoff.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
    witnesses. You know, Mr. Hewitt, it is extraordinary, the
    lengths to which Republican State legislators in Georgia have
    gone to try to make it harder for some folks to vote. They
    passed legislation that makes it harder to request an absentee
    ballot; that shrinks the period of runoff elections, to drive
    up lines at polling places during early voting in runoff
    elections; that allows anybody to file limitless frivolous
    challenges to the eligibility to vote of their own neighbors.
    So, 6 activists, on the basis of this, in 2022 challenged the
    registrations of 89,000 Georgia voters. All of this intended to
    make it harder for some folks to vote and therefore to gain an
    edge in elections. It's about partisan political power.
        I am introducing today legislation called the Right to Vote
    Act, and this bill would empower voters to challenge in court
    any action taken by a State or local government that makes it
    harder to vote and force that State or that locality to
    demonstrate that the restrictions serve some governmental
    purpose and are the least restrictive means of doing so. Mr.
    Hewitt, why is it essential that voters be able to challenge
    voter suppression policies in court?
        Mr. Hewitt. It's essential because otherwise they have
    rights with no remedy, and that's exactly what some people are
    after. You know, we had to fight tooth and nail, Senator
    Ossoff, just to get a preliminary injunction on a couple of
    those provisions that you mentioned. On the line-warming
    provision outside of 100 feet, 150 feet of a polling place and
    also the provision that trick voters, where you have to have
    your date of birth on an absentee ballot--and many people just
    write the date that they're submitting the ballot, by instinct,
    and so it was viewed as immaterial by the court. But there's so
    many other provisions that have not been addressed.
        But your legislation is so critical, we believe, and we're
    glad to see you introduce it, because the notion of a positive,
    affirmative right is what we should have in this country. We
    have the constitutional provision that prohibits discrimination
    in voting and statutory provisions which we seek to strengthen,
    but a positive, affirmative right is what this country should
    be all about. And so we applaud your introduction and look
    forward to supporting your legislation.
        Senator Ossoff. Well, thank you for supporting the bill.
    And the basic idea is that if States or local governments are
    going to make it harder for eligible voters to vote, then they
    should have to be able to prove in court why it's necessary and
    that it's the least restrictive means of achieving whatever
    their objective is. And I just want to reflect, in closing,
    here, on the context for what's happened in Georgia.
        Mr. Hewitt. Well----
        Senator Ossoff. Let me just say, Mr. Hewitt--we had just
    concluded a Presidential election and two of the most
    consequential Senate runoffs in U.S. history. Democrats had
    prevailed in those races. The former President, as you'll
    recall, had put immense pressure on the Governor of Georgia,
    the Secretary of State of Georgia, to commit what may have been
    felony election crimes and overturn the results. You'll recall
    the former President saying, just find me 12 or 13,000 votes,
    to try to overturn the outcome of the election. No evidence
    whatsoever supporting the former President's conspiracy theory
    has been presented.
        There was just a lengthy piece written in the AJC by a
    gentleman named Ken Block, who was hired by the Trump campaign
    to try to find this alleged fraud. He found none. Nevertheless,
    the State legislature advanced this legislation, passed a law
    to drive up the time it takes to wait in line to vote during
    runoffs, make it so no one can bring you so much as a drink of
    water while you're standing in line, allow these unlimited
    challenges--I mean, the fact that people are spending their
    time filing frivolous challenges to their fellow Americans'
    eligibility to vote should outrage us. And we need to
    establish, as a matter of Federal law, that voters have a say
    in court, where their rights are infringed without some
    specific reason for the restriction and a demonstration that
    it's the least restrictive means of doing so. I thank you all
    for your testimony, your expertise, and your advocacy.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Ossoff. There's one more
    Senator on the way, so I'll just wait and kind of pause for a
    moment, here. But let me say a word to my colleague from
    Georgia. I think you've really put your finger on the major
    issue here. It is time for us to establish the right to vote in
    this country, and those who would take away that right have to
    pay a price and answer to the judgment not only of history but
    of their peers at this time in history. I think you're moving
    in the right direction, and I want to support your effort in
    that regard.
        I think it's also important to note that the excuse--and I
    call it an excuse--given for a lot of this misconduct is voter
    integrity. And when the facts come through and it's .003--maybe
    I missed a zero there--003, the incidence of fraud and abuse,
    you have to ask yourself, what are you sacrificing in the
    process, to have this kind of scrutiny and this kind of
    obstacle in the path of the voter? They're trying to exercise
    their right. It's a rare, rare occurrence. We want to eradicate
    it if we can, but to do it at the expense of people's right to
    vote is just fundamentally wrong, as far as I'm concerned. So,
    thank you for raising that issue. Appreciate it very much.
    We're going to wait here for a moment.
        Senator Ossoff. I would note, Mr. Chairman, since we're
    waiting for a colleague to arrive, something else that happened
    during that infamous period where the former President was hell
    bent on overturning the result in Georgia, based upon baseless
    conspiracy theories. The U.S. Attorney for the Northern
    District of Georgia resigned because he was coming under
    pressure from the White House or the Trump campaign to
    participate in this effort to overturn the election result. And
    let me just remind everyone, again, as we wait for our
    colleague to arrive: zero evidence. Zero evidence. The very man
    hired by the Trump campaign to try to find this alleged fraud,
    to substantiate this conspiracy theory, just wrote a long
    article about how he found nothing. Nothing. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, we're at
    a hearing for an incredibly partisan piece of legislation, just
    after last week, where all of us witnessed the most partisan,
    angry, bitter, divisive State of the Union speech in the
    history of our country. So, I guess we shouldn't be surprised
    that Democrats, once again, seek to divide us.
        Contrary to the prevailing Democrat narrative, happily
    repeated by the corporate media, that Republican-sponsored
    legislation would herald a return to Jim Crow--I would note, by
    the way, Jim Crow laws were drafted by Democrats to ensure the
    voters could only elect Democrats; that's what Jim Crow was
    designed to do--the reality is a majority of Americans support
    legislation that protects election integrity, that protects the
    right to vote. And yet today Democrats are not interested in
    election integrity. They are interested in power, power by any
    means necessary. And so the Democrats' focus is on controlling
    elections and controlling the outcome.
        There's an irony. Today Democrats love to beat their chest
    and say they are defending democracy, and yet all across the
    country we see Democrat courts and Democrat officials who have
    been trying to throw Donald Trump off the ballot, because
    nothing protects democracy like preventing the voters from
    voting for your opponent. When the Colorado Supreme Court
    decision came down, stripping the voters of Colorado of the
    right to vote for President Trump, I said that day the decision
    would be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and I said it
    would likely be reversed unanimously. It was reversed
    unanimously. I invite anyone in this room to point to even one
    prominent Democrat who criticized that baldly anti-democratic
    power grab in not only Colorado but Maine and Illinois. Stood
    up and said, we hate democracy, and we will not let the voters
    vote for our opponent.
        In the Supreme Court, I led a brief on behalf of 179
    Members of Congress, arguing that Colorado's actions striking
    President Trump's name from the ballot were unconstitutional
    and that they endanger democracy. You know who didn't join that
    brief? Even a single Democrat. Because when it comes to
    democracy, today's Washington Democrats have zero interest in
    the voters actually deciding. What they're interested in is
    anything that maintains Democrat power. And what they oppose is
    anything that creates even a tiny window that the voters might
    choose to vote for somebody else.
        Today, Democrats are pushing a bill that has many terrible
    provisions, but let's cut to the heart of it. This bill would
    institute two types of preclearance: preclearance for everyone
    Democrats don't like and preclearance for everything they don't
    like. This is about power. This is not about election
    integrity. This is the opposite of election integrity.
        Here's how it would work. Every State and local government
    across the country would have to submit certain voter changes,
    things like voter ID requirements or prohibitions on ballot
    harvesting, to radical partisan activists at the Biden
    Department of Justice like Kristen Clarke, who has not been shy
    about her hatred of voter integrity laws. And, by the way,
    spoiler alert, the Biden Justice Department would refuse to
    preclear all of them. Anything enhancing election integrity,
    the Biden Department of Justice is opposed to. Similarly, State
    and local governments that the Democrats don't like would have
    to submit any voting changes to the Biden Department of
    Justice, which, sadly, has been the most partisan and political
    Department of Justice in our Nation's history.
        Mr. von Spakovsky, welcome back to the Committee. Although
    Democrats are holding this hearing under the guise of caring
    about voting rights, it's ironic, because they're the party
    that just attempted to disenfranchise millions of Americans. I
    want to talk to you about that irony, Mr. von Spakovsky. How
    many Colorado voters would've been disenfranchised if the
    Democrat Supreme Court had affirmed--if the U.S. Supreme Court
    had affirmed the Democrat Colorado Supreme Court?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Four and a half million registered
    voters.
        Senator Cruz. Does disenfranchising four and a half million
    voters--is that enhancing democracy?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. No.
        Senator Cruz. Are you aware of any major Democrats who
    spoke out in support of democracy and against disenfranchising
    millions of people in Colorado?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. I am not.
        Senator Cruz. Are you aware of any major Democrats who
    spoke out against disenfranchising voters in the State of
    Maine?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. I am not, and that would've been a
    million registered voters.
        Senator Cruz. Are you aware of any major Democrats who
    spoke out against disenfranchising voters in the State of
    Illinois, which is the home State of the Chairman of this
    Committee?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. I am not.
        Senator Cruz. And that was one lone district judge who
    said, nope, the people of Illinois don't get to vote for the
    Republican nominee for President. Mr. von Spakovsky, you wrote
    a November 2023 report with two important findings, utilizing
    2016 and 2020 Census Bureau data. What were your conclusions
    regarding the nine formerly covered states under Section 5?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. That they had registration rates and
    turnout rates close to the national registration or turnout
    rate or above it, and, in fact----
        Senator Cruz. And how do they compare to New York and
    California?
        Mr. von Spakovsky. Yes. Well, they all did better than New
    York and California, including the turnout of--registration,
    turnout not just of all voters but registration, turnout of
    Black voters.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, makes
    reference to a set of facts which clearly applied at the time,
    in the 19th century, and most people assumed would never, ever
    occur again in history. And that was the existence of an
    insurrection in this country. And Section 3 says that no person
    shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress or elector of
    a President, Vice President, or hold any office, civil or
    military, under the United States or any State, who shall have
    engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same. To my
    knowledge, that had not been tested before. It reached the
    point where we relied on the Supreme Court to rule on how we
    would establish that an insurrection occurred and a person was
    engaged in.
        And the reason, of course, it was raised is because of
    January 6, 2021. I remember that day. I think all America
    remembers that day. What some called tourism turned out to be
    an insurrection, and we were rousted from the Senate Chamber
    and sent to a safe place until the Capitol Building of the
    United States could be secured again. It was clearly designed
    by President Trump to send his supporters down to stop the
    process of counting the electoral votes. He disputed the
    outcome of the election. That was his recourse.
        Let me tell you what one Senator said about it. He said
    afterwards, ``He didn't get away with anything yet. We have a
    criminal justice system in this country. We have civil
    litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being
    accountable by either one.'' That quote comes from Senate
    Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said that about the
    insurrection that occurred on January 6.
        What the Supreme Court was asked to do was decide, in the
    context of 2024, where are we in terms of that language, the
    rather clear language in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3.
    The Court rejected the plaintiff's claims and found that
    ``because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the
    States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth
    Amendment against Federal office-holders and candidates,
    individual States cannot bar former President Trump from
    appearing on a ballot for the 2024 election.'' They didn't say
    that the President was not engaged in an insurrection, but they
    said that isn't to be decided by individual States. It's to be
    decided by Congress.
        I don't think there was any great conspiracy here. There
    was a set of facts no one anticipated when this was originally
    written back in the 19th century. So, that is a fact, and what
    I've read is directly from the Supreme Court decision. I
    appreciate all----
        Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman? If I could ask a question to
    the Chairman, is the Chairman saying that you disagree with the
    unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, and do----
        Chair Durbin. No.
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. You believe the voters should be
    prevented from voting for President Trump, if they so desire?
        Chairm Durbin. No. I didn't say that. I----
        Senator Cruz. That's why I'm asking.
        Chair Durbin. I stand by the decision of the Court.
        Senator Cruz. Okay. Good.
        Chair Durbin. I appreciate all the witnesses appearing
    before the Committee today. John Lewis, who was the inspiration
    for this hearing, famously described the right to vote as
    ``precious, almost sacred.'' I believe we have a sacred duty as
    Members of Congress to protect this right. Throughout his life,
    John Lewis fought for legislation to combat voter suppression,
    and it is a great tragedy he passed away before Congress acted
    to restore the Voting Rights Act. Our country owes an
    outstanding debt to John Lewis and countless others who
    tirelessly fought to ensure equitable access to the ballot. I
    hope this Congress will honor their legacy by finally enacting
    this act into law. This hearing will remain open for a week,
    and questions may be submitted to the Members of the panel who
    were kind enough to be here today.
        Chair Durbin. With that, the hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

    Submitted by Senator Durbin:

     NARF--Native American Rights Fund................................   133

     Southern Poverty Law Center Shelby Report........................   145

     SPLC-Southern Poverty Law Center--Protecting Voting Rights in
        America.......................................................   177

     American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118shrg58371/pdf/CHRG-
        118shrg
        58371-add1.pdf

     Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118shrg58371/pdf/CHRG-
        118shrg
        58371-add2.pdf

      NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118shrg58371/pdf/CHRG-
        118shrg
        58371-add3.pdf

    Submitted by Senator Booker:

     Voting Rights Hearing--Brennan Center--Growing Racial Disparities
        in Voter Turnout..............................................   220

     Why Do Nonwhite Georgia Voters Have To Wait In Line For Hours?...   246

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    [all]