[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 110 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7224-H7232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICANS NEED THE RIGHT TO VOTE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Black Caucus
today will be hosting here on the floor a special order regarding the
protection of the fundamental right to vote for all Americans. Given
the crucial nature of the up and coming election, the caucus' chairman,
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and other members of the CBC
have requested this time to talk with all Americans about some
fundamental flaws that exist in our system.
Mr. Speaker, the Bible tells us, in the story of Matthew, of a wise
man who built his house on a rock, and when the rain fell and the
floods came and the winds blew and beat upon his house, it did not fall
because he built it on a rock. But there was a foolish man who built
his house on sand, and when the rain fell and the floods came and the
winds blew and beat against his house, it fell.
Mr. Speaker, elections in the United States are like the foolish man
who built his house on sand. Our election system is built on the sand
of States' rights. We need to build it on a rock, the rock of a new
amendment to the Constitution, affirmatively guaranteeing every
American an individual right to vote and granting Congress the
authority to create a unitary voting system.
The United States sees itself as the center of world democracy, so
most Americans will be surprised, even shocked, to discover that we do
not have the right to vote. Unlike the Constitution's First Amendment
guarantee of an individual right to freedom of religion, to freedom of
press, to freedom of assembly, the individual right to vote is not in
the Constitution.
Most Americans are also unaware that, according to a joint study by
Caltech and MIT, somewhere between 4 and 6 million votes nationally
were not counted in 2000. Many States had similar problems to what
occurred in Florida. My State of Illinois was the worst. Florida got
the attention only because of the closeness of their vote.
Voting in America is overseen by 13,000 different election
administrations, all separate and unequal, which is reminiscent of the
legal theory that established Jim Crow segregation for 58 years as a
result of the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
{time} 1430
The 15th, 19th and 26th amendments prohibit discrimination in voting
on the basis of race, sex and age respectively, but they do not
affirmatively guarantee the right to vote. Voting in America is
essentially a 10th amendment issue, States rights, and therefore we end
up with 50 different State systems, 3,067 different county systems and
20,000 different municipal systems in the United States.
The Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore that the individual citizen
has no fundamental constitutional right to vote for electors for
President of the United States. In other words, Florida's State right
to oversee the election took precedence over counting every individual
vote; or legally, States rights triumphed over individual rights. In
essence the Court said since there is no affirmative right to vote in
the Constitution, what does the Florida State statute say? It says that
the former Secretary of State is in charge of the election, and
according to Florida law, all of the votes must be counted by midnight,
December 12.
Since the Court decision came down at 10 p.m. on December 12, the
Secretary of State said, in essence, if you cannot count all of the
votes in the next 2 hours, President Bush is the President. But just in
case the Court had ordered all of the votes counted and it turned out
that Vice President Gore had won the most popular votes in Florida, the
Republican controlled, or it could be a Democratic controlled,
legislature had a backup plan: Based on the fact there is no right to
vote in the Constitution of the United States for the individual
citizen, that the Constitution says the right to elect electors resides
in the State legislature. The Florida State legislature was prepared to
ignore the 6 million popular votes, elect their own electors and send
them to Congress for certification. That would have been both legally
and constitutionally permissible.
The Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, is not the answer. It is built on
sand, States' rights. I am convinced if Congress had the will, under
our current Constitution it could do much more than HAVA to strengthen
the administration of a unitary voting system and protect and fully
count all votes.
But I am unconvinced, absent a voting rights amendment, that any
solution to these and any of our other most pressing voting rights
problems will be universal or sustainable. How do we change the current
system and prevent another Florida, another Illinois, or some Ohio or
some other State from undermining our election system? How can we
achieve equal protection under the law in 13,000 separate and unequally
administered voting jurisdictions? Some voting jurisdictions use
computers. Others use punch card voting. Some allow Internet voting,
others do not. Some allow lever voting systems. Some voters simply
write an ``X'' next to the candidate of their choice; all separate and
all unequal.
If we as Americans can guarantee for the people of Afghanistan the
fundamental right to vote, and we can guarantee the fundamental right
to vote for the people of Iraq, then of course we should be able to
guarantee for every single American the fundamental right to vote.
Look at the issue of felons. In the State of Illinois if one commits
a felony, after one has served their time, the State of Illinois under
State law reenfranchises felons. In Florida once one commits a felony,
one will never be reenfranchised because the State prohibits felons who
have served their time from ever regaining the franchise. But in
Vermont, even if you are in jail you are still allowed to vote in
presidential and local elections, in some local elections.
Mr. Speaker, we need to guarantee the fundamental right to vote for
every single American in our Constitution and only by adding an
affirmative right to vote amendment to the Constitution, such an
amendment would give Congress the power to establish a unitary voting
system, ensure that every vote is counted, and grant equal protection
under the law for all voters.
House Joint Resolution 28 is such an amendment, and I urge Members to
sign on as cosponsors.
Mr. Speaker, no one has been traveling across the country as much,
analyzing the Nation's voting system and trying to raise the
consciousness of the Congress to guarantee and secure democracy for all
Americans quite like the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus,
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Fighting for a Right To Vote Constitutional Amendment
(By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.)
Most Americans believe that the ``legal right to vote'' in
our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our
Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only
provides for non-discrimination in voting on the basis of
race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments
respectively.
The U.S. Constitution contains no explicit affirmative
individual right to vote!
Even though the ``vote of the people'' is perceived as
supreme in our democracy--because voting rights are
protective of all other rights--the Supreme Court in Bush v.
Gore constantly reminded lawyers that there is no explicit or
fundamental right to suffrage in the Constitution--``the
individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to
vote for electors for the President of the United States.''
(Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).
[[Page H7225]]
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice
Antonin Scalia besieged Gore's lawyer with inquiries premised
on the assumption that there is no constitutional right of
suffrage in the election of a president, and state
legislatures have the legal power to choose presidential
electors without recourse to a popular vote. ``In the eyes of
the [Supreme] Court, democracy is rooted not in the right of
the American people to vote and govern but in a set of state-
based institutional arrangements for selecting leaders.''
(Overruling Democracy--The Supreme Court v. The American
People, by James B. Raskin, p. 7)
While a voting rights constitutional amendment would be
strictly non-partisan, nevertheless, the 2000 election is a
splendid example of the undemocratic nature of our currently
administered election systems--and there are literally
thousands of them. Each state and the District of Columbia
(51), counties (3,067), and thousands of municipalities
administer their own election system under state law, with
great flexibility on many issues in the variously
administered voting jurisdictions. That's the chaotic dynamic
that was in play in Florida's 67 counties.
In 2000, if every American had had an individual
constitutional right to vote, every vote would have had to be
counted. However, under our current ``states' rights''
arrangement the state legislature and state law took legal
precedence over the individual vote and the individual voter.
It is also important to point out that if candidate George
Bush had lost in the Supreme Court in 2000, Florida's
Republican-controlled legislature was prepared to ignore the
six million popular votes cast in Florida. Under state law,
they were determined to elect, select, choose, and hand pick,
if necessary, their own ``Bush presidential electors'' and
send them to Congress for certification--even if it had
turned out that Al Gore won the most popular votes in
Florida.
Thus, in terms of the political consequences of our present
arrangement, if all of the votes legally cast in 2000 had
been counted, Al Gore and not George Bush would be President
of the United States today.
The principled commitment ought to be honest, fair and
efficient elections for everyone, for all time. However,
after 2000, any Democrat who cannot support adding a voting
rights amendment to the Constitution ought to be asked to
explain why!
Thus, even if all votes had been counted and Al Gore had
won Florida's popular vote, and his electors had been sent to
Congress, under our current Constitution the Florida
legislature could have sent their slate of Bush electors to
Congress and it would have been perfectly legal--and a
``strict constructionist'' or necessary constitutional
interpretation--for Congress to have recognized the Bush
electors.
Only a Voting Rights Amendment can fix these flaws in our
Constitution and administration of elections.
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: ``The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.'' Since the word ``vote''
appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-
discrimination, the so-called right to vote is a ``state
right.'' Only a constitutional amendment would give every
American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote.
Without the constitutional right to vote, Congress can pass
voter legislation--and I support progressive electoral reform
legislation--but it leaves the ``states' rights'' system in
place. Currently, Congress mostly uses financial and other
incentives to entice the states to cooperate and comply with
the law. It's one reason there have been so many problems
with the recently passed Help America Vote Act, and why many
states still have not fully complied with the law.
Our ``states' rights'' voting system is structured to be
``separate and unequal.'' As we saw in the 2000 election,
there are 50 states, 3,067 counties, tens of thousands of
cities, and many different machines and methods of voting--
all ``separate and unequal.''
There's only one way to legally guarantee ``an equal right
to vote'' to every individual American and that is to add a
Voting Rights Amendment to the Constitution!
The lack of basic political rights for all Americans was
made even clearer in Alexander v. Mineta, a case to gain
political representation for the disenfranchised citizens in
our nation's capital, the District of Columbia. Ignoring the
democratic ideal of voting, the court said, ``The Equal
Protection Clause does not protect the right of all citizens
to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to
vote'' (Alexander v. Daley, 90 F. Supp. 2d, 35, 66, emphasis
added) ``To be qualified, you must belong to a `state' within
the meaning of Article I and the Seventeenth Amendment and
must be granted the right to vote by the state.'' (Overruling
Democracy--The Supreme Court vs. The American People, By
Jamin B. Raskin, p. 36)
I believe that voting is not only a democratic right, it's
a human right. That human right is not in our Constitution!
That's why I have proposed legislation to add a voting rights
amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on the individual
right of all Americans to vote. It was introduced in the U.S.
House of Representatives as House Joint Resolution 28. It
reads as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States:
`Section 1. All citizens of the United States, who are
eighteen years or age or older, shall have the right to vote
in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the
citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United Sates, any State, or any other public
or private person or entity, except that the United States or
any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to
produce efficient and honest elections.
`Section 2. Each State shall administer public elections in
the State in accordance with election performance standards
established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider
such election performance standards at least once every four
years to determine if higher standards should be established
to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding
the administration of elections.
`Section 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the
opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public
election.
`Section 4. Each State and the District constituting the
seat of Government of the United States shall establish and
abide by rules for appointing its respective number of
Electors. Such rules shall provide for the appointment of
Electors on the day designated by the Congress for holding an
election for President and Vice President and shall ensure
that each Elector votes for the candidate for President and
Vice President who received a majority of the popular vote in
the State or District.
`Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation.'
With this amendment in the Constitution, all of the votes
in 2000--to the best of our human ability and using credible
and uniform criteria--would have had to have been counted. No
unnecessary or arbitrary timeline cutoff would have been
allowed with regard to counting votes. And the Florida
legislature could not have even thought about ignoring the
six million popular Florida votes in order to select
presidential electors independent of the popular vote. Under
this amendment, the popular vote could never be ignored and
an independent legislative selection of electors could never
happen.
In light of the presidential fiasco in Florida in 2000, and
during the South Carolina Democratic presidential candidate's
debate on May 3, 2003, Rev. Al Sharpton asked Florida Senator
Bob Graham if he would support adding a voting rights
amendment to the Constitution. In essence he said the
following: ``I haven't seen the legislation, but probably
not. I believe states should remain in control of election
procedures. And I'm against federalizing the election
process.''
Let's analyze his statement.
1. It means Senator Graham essentially supports the status
quo when it comes to voting rights because, under current
law, 2000 could happen again in Florida or elsewhere. The
winner of the popular vote losing has happened three previous
times in our history--1824, 18776 and 1888. Most Americans
are totally unaware that, nationally, according to a joint
study by the California Institute of Technology and
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, somewhere between four
and six million votes were not counted in 2000 because many
states had similar problems to what occurred in Florida.
Other states' election systems didn't get the same exposure
as Florida's because the winner in other states was not in
doubt. For example, Illinois was worse than Florida--it
didn't count nearly 200,000 votes with similar problems to
Florida's--but because Gore won Illinois by over 300,000
votes, the winner of the state's electoral votes was not in
doubt. In Illinois and other states too, most of the
problems--with voting and machines--were concentrated in the
poor and minority communities.
``Amazingly, the government of the United States conducts
and provides no official count of the vote for president.''
(Overruling Democracy--The Supreme Court vs. The American
People, by Jamin B. Raskin, p. 66) Can you imagine the United
States recognizing a close and hotly contested third world
``democratic'' election where the citizens had no right to
vote, as much as six percent of the total vote was not
counted; where there were no official results provided by the
government; and where that country's Supreme Court declared
its personal and ideological friend the winner, even though
the declared winner did not get the most popular votes?
2. It means Senator Graham supports ``states' rights'' when
it comes to voting rights. But I would remind Senator Graham
and others, slavery was not supported directly in the
Constitution. The word ``slavery'' never appeared in the
Constitution. Slavery was supported constitutionally because
states had a right--``states' rights''--to provide legal
cover allowing private citizens to own other human beings.
That same states' rights system was at work in the 2000
election with respect to voting and it continues today.
3. H.J. Res. 28 does not federalize voting any more than
the First Amendment federalizes free speech or freedom of
religion. The First Amendment's right to free speech and
[[Page H7226]]
religion is an individual citizenship right applicable to
every American--not a ``federal'' right--protected by the
federal government and its courts. It's an individual right
that can be upheld in a federal court of law. Likewise, a
voting rights amendment would grant every American an
individual citizenship right to vote that, because it
would be a right for every American, would ultimately be
validated by Congress through legislation, and the Supreme
Court through interpretation.
4. In essence, then, in the South Carolina debate, Senator
Graham chose ``states' rights'' over an ``individual right.''
5. Attorney General John Ashcroft sent a letter to the
National Rifle Association asserting that every American has
an individual constitutional right to a gun. In it he wrote;
``Let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the
original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the
right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.'' Some agree
and others disagree with that interpretation.
However, there can be no debate or disagreement about the
right to vote. The Supreme Court made it absolutely clear in
Bush v. Gore--there is no individual citizenship right to
vote in the Constitution!
If Americans had a choice between the right to a gun and
the right to vote, it would be nearly unanimous. Americans
would choose the right to vote! If that is the priority of
the American people, then we should have the wisdom and
political will to codify it in the form of a constitutional
amendment.
What are the advantages of fighting for human rights and
constitutional amendments? Human rights and constitutional
amendments are non-partisan (they're neither Democratic nor
Republican), they're non-ideological (they're not liberal,
moderate, or conservative), they're non-programmatic (they
don't require a particular means, approach or program to
realize them), and they're non-special interest (they're for
all Americans). We can experiment to find the best means of
fulfilling such a constitutional right!
August 6th was the 38th anniversary of the signing of the
1965 Voting Rights Act. But the Voting Rights Act is really
misnamed and, to some extent, misleading. It's not actually a
voting rights act. In fulfillment of the 15th Amendment to
the Constitution, added in 1870, the 1965 Voting Rights Act
was actually a non-discrimination in voting act.
To fulfill the democratic ideal, an affirmative voting
rights constitutional amendment still lies in the future.
According to Harvard's constitutional law professor Alexander
Keyssar one-hundred-and-eight (108) of the one-hundred-and-
nineteen (119) nations in the world that elect their
representatives to all levels of government in some
democratic fashion explicitly guarantee their citizens the
right to vote in their constitution. Both Afghanistan's
constitution and Iraq' interim legal document contains a
right to vote. The United States is one of the eleven nations
in the world that doesn't provide an explicit right to vote
in its Constitution.
If we pass a new voting rights amendment, the next civil
rights movement will emerge fighting for congressional
legislation that can advance even further the central
democratic idea of universal voting--only partially enabled
through the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Motor Voter and the Help
America Vote Act. With a voting rights amendment, a new civil
rights movement would emerge to fight to fully implement the
amendment, while also using the federal courts to interpret
voting rights more fully.
What can I do? If you would like to help me put this voting
rights amendment in the Constitution, call your
congressperson at 202-225-3121 (or call their local office)
and urge them to become a co-sponsor of H.J. Res. 28. If you
need more information about this legislation call my office
at 202-225-0773.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cole). The Chair will reallocate control
of the balance of the leadership time to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Jackson) for all of his hard work. I thank the gentleman for constantly
standing up for what is right, so often finding himself standing alone.
But as I have often said with regard to the Congressional Black
Caucus when the question is asked why is it that you stand up over and
over again when it appears you cannot win this battle or that battle,
what we do is we consistently stand up, not necessarily to win but to
set the trend for justice and for righteousness.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon with my fellow members of the
Congressional Black Caucus to highlight the importance of protecting
the right to vote in our Nation. I have often said this is not a black,
yellow, brown, reddish. It is not about race, it is not about culture.
It is not about religion. This is a red, white and blue issue.
When we talk about the right to vote and have your vote counted, it
is clear when we look at our democracy that the very building blocks of
the great thing that we call democracy and that so many other countries
emulate or try to emulate is built on the individual's right to go to
his or her polling place and pull a lever to select someone who will
represent him or her in local or State or Federal Government, and that
person will hopefully reflect that citizen's viewpoints when it comes
to making policy. That is what it is all about. That is what our
democracy is all about. That is why voting is so important.
When we take away that right to the vote or when you deny a person
after they have voted the right to have their vote counted, then we are
literally taking away the building blocks of what we call this great
democracy.
Mr. Speaker, we are now 48 days from what will be one of the most
decisive elections of our lifetime. I have said on many occasions that
it is not only a decisive election, but that it is probably the most
important election. This is that election where we will select the
President who will decide who will be the next two or three new members
of the Supreme Court, and who will decide exactly where we go with this
Iraq war. This is the election which will probably decide the course of
America's history for the next 50 years. Therefore, it is critical that
within the next 48 days we educate people on registration deadlines,
early voting, and the rights each American is entitled to when they go
to the polls.
As an African American elected official, I am particularly sensitive
to the issue of voting rights because when the Declaration of
Independence was penned, it did not have my independence in mind. It
did not have my independence in mind, nor did it have my great
grandfather's, my grandfather's, nor my mother or father.
Mr. Speaker, our recent national history record records a time when
the right to elect one's own representatives in Congress, in State
houses and in the White House was a conditional right. It was dependent
upon which State a person resided in, whether a person was born male or
female, the color of one's skin or the ability to pass a literacy test.
Indeed, our voting rights were limited by a vision of our national
future that was clouded by prejudice and by dogged political ambition.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can remember a time just over 40 years ago
when the country was in the grips of a national revolution. Freedom
fighters took to the streets in protest of an America that did not
recognize that its strength was indeed in its diversity. The Voting
Rights Act of 1965, one of the products of that revolution, did not
come about because Congress had finally come to its senses. Instead it
was the manifestation of a slave's dream deferred.
As Dr. Walter Scott Thomas of the New Psalmist Baptist Church said
this weekend at the Congressional Black Caucus prayer breakfast, when a
people fail to dream, when they fail to dream of a better day, then
they have indeed doomed their future.
So the Voting Rights Act of 1965 grew out of the sweat, blood and
tears shed by brave men and women marching hopefully across the Edmund
Pettis Bridge in Selma, Alabama, only to be met by police batons and
tear gas on the other side. And it grew out of the work of so many
other patriots whose names will never be recorded in our history books
who may have never been recorded on the front pages of the Washington
Post or the Boston Globe, but the fact of the matter is they made
significant contributions.
It is because of the Voting Rights Act which outlawed the racist
policies which shut blacks out of the voting booths that the dean of
the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), was elected to serve in the United States Congress.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation was founded upon the basic belief in a
people's government elected by and for the people. Yet for so many
years in our history, African Americans were denied the fundamental
right to elect their representatives. In this very Chamber, African-
American members who were elected by voters in their district were
denied seats in the people's House of Representatives and sent back
home simply because of their race, simply because they were born black
in America.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, before there ever was a Congressional Black
Caucus,
[[Page H7227]]
five of the first 20 African Americans elected to serve in the House
were not allowed to be seated in this Chamber which in essence
invalidated the will and the intent of voters which elected them to
office. As a Nation, we have been fortunate to overcome these and other
trying times in our history. For the most part we have learned the
important lessons of our past.
Yet as evidenced by the contested 2000 presidential election, there
are still remnants of that ugly past which seeks to remerge with a new
name yet created the same result. We may not call it Jim Crow anymore,
but voter suppression by any other name is voter suppression just the
same.
Mr. Speaker, some estimates suggest that there were between 4 and 6
million Americans whose votes were thrown out in the last presidential
election. According to a report submitted to the Committee on
Government Reform on which I sit, the General Accounting Office stated
that counties with higher percentages of minority residents tended to
have higher percentages of uncounted Presidential votes.
Some would have us believe it is mere coincidence that the African
American votes were more unlikely to go uncounted and be invalidated in
the 2000 election, but we in the Congressional Black Caucus know
better. If Members remember, we came to the well of this very Chamber
on January 6, 2001, to express our outrage at the systemic
disenfranchisement of so many voters in our own communities.
{time} 1445
Mr. Speaker, as it was clearly shown in Fahrenheit 9/11, it was the
Congressional Black Caucus that stood up to protest the Florida vote so
that we could merely speak for an hour and a half. But back then,
January 2, 2001, we could not get one Senator to join in with us so
that we could at least have a dialogue, because it was our position
that whenever one American is denied their right to vote, whenever one
American's vote is not counted, then that is one too many. And we were
determined to make sure that history would not be recorded, when our
great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren would read the
history many, many years from now, we did not want it said that we did
not stand up and at least protest what had happened in the great State
of Florida. We each lined up one by one at this very podium, not
because President Bush won or because Al Gore lost, but because the
issue was bigger than any one individual. We came to the House floor
because the fundamental right to vote had been tampered with solely for
political gain and we were not going to stand for it. Unfortunately, in
that effort, again now made famous by Michael Moore's documentary,
Fahrenheit 9/11, we were silenced and our voices were not heard.
Mr. Speaker, we come to the well of the House this afternoon to
declare that this will not happen again, not on our watch. Recent news
reports from the New York Times and other reputable papers across the
country document an organized campaign taking hold of minority
communities aimed at discouraging people from fulfilling their civic
duty and voting this November. In my very district at the last
election, notices were put out all across the City of Baltimore telling
people that if they were behind in their rent or if they were behind in
their gas and electric payments or if they had any kind of problems
with the Motor Vehicle Administration, they would be subject to arrest
if they were to go to the polls. But not only did the notice do that,
it also told them that they should appear at the polls to vote the day
after the election was to take place. Again, this was another effort on
the part of some to stand in the way of people voting and having their
votes counted.
The Help America Vote Act, a wonderful act which was enacted by this
great Congress, has provisions with regard to provisional voting. When
we look back at the past election and look at what happened to a lot of
those provisional votes, a lot of them, the vast majority in many
States were thrown out for simple things, as if on one side of the room
was precinct one and one side of the room was precinct two, if the
person actually was supposed to vote in precinct one and mistakenly
voted in precinct two, a provisional ballot, the ballot was thrown out.
While we want to make sure that we protect the integrity of every
ballot, I do believe that the founders of this great country when they
crafted the Constitution of the United States wanted to make sure that
every citizen had the right to vote.
Let me just give you a few examples, Mr. Speaker. Recently the New
York Times reported that police officers visited the homes of elderly
African Americans in Orlando, Florida, flaunting their guns and
questioning them about their voter registration activities. Just this
week in an editorial, the Times quotes a State legislator in Michigan
saying, and I quote, if we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're
going to have a tough time in this election. The Houston Chronicle
tells of students at a historically black college, Prairie View A&M
University, being told that if they dared to vote in local elections
using their college address, they would be prosecuted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no question in anyone's mind that these
types of activities are geared toward intimidating voters, particularly
minority voters, into staying home on November 2. After all, 81 percent
of Detroit's population is African American. By suggesting suppression
of the Detroit vote, the Michigan State legislator was publicly
suggesting suppression of the black vote. The Supreme Court case which
established the right of students to vote on campus was actually
initiated by a case involving Prairie View University some 26 years
ago. Here it is 26 years later and the same forces that sought to
disenfranchise students in the seventies and eighties have been
reincarnated in 2004.
It was just recently that Bishop Vashti McKenzie of the AME Church
said, and I quote, that while we may have new battles, and she was
referring to African Americans today, we are basically fighting our
fathers' and our grandfathers' same battles. We are only dealing with a
different person but they are the same battles. Indeed, she was
correct.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure some people may be listening to this across
the country and think that the Congressional Black Caucus is somehow
paranoid. But I ask that they simply read the headlines in their local
papers. Just 2 weeks ago, voters in Florida's primary were turned away
from the polls because they did not have proper identification. The
poll workers conveniently neglected to tell people that all they had to
do was sign an affidavit attesting to their identity. A spokeswoman for
the Florida Secretary of State is quoted as saying, ``The affidavit
option in the law is merely a courtesy to the voter.'' I have news for
the Florida Secretary of State and anyone else in the country who is
thinking about threatening, miseducating or otherwise dissuading people
from voting on November 2. The ability to vote is not a courtesy. It is
the law. I along with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus
will defend that law by any means necessary.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that our country get about the serious
business of defending this democracy that we champion so proudly
abroad. One first step would be to fully fund the Election Assistance
Commission. As you know, the Election Assistance Commission was created
as part of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to fix our country's
broken electoral system. There are some that have argued that the
system is not broken. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand
that it is. All one has to do is do a replay of the 2000 election. But
what you and people across this country probably do not know is the
fact that the Election Assistance Commission was so severely
underfunded that it could not even afford to pay the rent on its office
space this year. That is simply incredible.
Congress and this President has got to stop giving lip service to the
idea of protecting the right to vote. We must act and we must act now.
Unless the Election Assistance Commission gets an additional
appropriation, they will be forced to pay their rent, salaries and, by
the way, oversee an entire Federal election with only $2 million. Not
even the greatest magician in the world could pull off that trick. The
four election assistance commissioners and their staffs are working
around the clock with State election officials to ensure a seamless
election process in November. However, by refusing to provide adequate
funding for their work,
[[Page H7228]]
Congress and the President is setting the commission up for failure.
Mr. Speaker, as we have been throughout the last 2 years, the
Congressional Black Caucus will travel to communities across this great
Nation again this weekend to inform voters of their rights. We do not
want people to get discouraged by the challenges that some seek to
mount against them in November. Instead, we want to awaken a spirit of
rebellion against these voter suppression tactics. We want mothers,
fathers, teachers and community leaders to feel a sense of urgency this
November. If there are forces working against us, we as a community
must work harder against them. We must work together, Democrats and
Republicans alike, to reinvigorate the civil rights battle cry that
famously proclaimed one man, one vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his
kind introduction and I appreciate very much the leadership that he has
shown on these issues. I join with him in standing with the
Congressional Black Caucus on these very vital issues, but I believe it
is enormously important that we pronounce not only to the Nation but
even to the world that the question of the Constitution and the
importance of one person, one vote in America has no color.
I am reminded of the early signs before the civil rights movement and
the opening of accommodations in America, we would see the signs
colored here, colored restroom, colored drinking fountain, colored
entrance. It seems as if whenever we begin to talk about civil rights,
for some reason there are those who wish to put a color sign, one that
establishes civil rights as belonging only to one community. The idea
of voting in America should clearly be that of every single citizen. I
hope that as America focuses attention on the November 2 election,
listening to polls go up and down, splintering by the finest of point
the remarks of each presidential candidate, I hope they will understand
that the only analysis that ever counts will be their vote on November
2, 2004.
And so we are standing today, and I am standing today because I
believe that we will need to have an ignited electorate, a voting
public that is both incensed about the depredation of their votes or
the depriving of the right to vote but as well an incensed electorate
to be energized about protecting their right to vote.
Might I just cite for those who are listening the numbers of issues
that are so very important in our community around voter rights. After
the 2000 election that saw a great disappointment across America,
500,000 individuals voted in the majority for a candidate that did not
ultimately become President of the United States. When I visited
Florida, I did not speak only to Florida A&M students who were denied
their right to vote or individuals who happened to be African-American
males who were told that they were convicted felons and denied their
right to vote but I spoke to senior citizens in West Palm Beach who
happened to be white Floridians who indicated their frustration with
the voting ballot and the inability to ask questions at the voting
booth and their frustration with having been forced inappropriately
because of the faulty ballot in voting for someone they did not desire
to vote for. Or how about talking to the disabled persons that I met
who were shedding tears because they could not access the particular
polling place because it was closed off to them.
Voting has no color. There is in fact no sign at the voting booth
that should say colored here or white here. But yet in Florida in 2000
and in Illinois and in other places, there were many, many people who
were denied the right to vote. Of course the Voting Rights Act of 1965
clearly enunciated principles that dealt with African Americans. It was
a result of the civil rights movement, a movement of Dr. King and A.
Phillip Randolph, Hosea Williams and Julian Bond and John Lewis and
many others who fought and came together around the empowerment of
voting for African Americans who had heretofore been denied, who could
not even pay poll tax and get to vote. So many of us have parents who
were intimidated away from the voting booth.
So we came to 2001, and some of us took advantage on January 6, 2001,
to be able to stand up and reject the tally in the State of Florida.
But even that could not turn back what had happened in November of 2000
and that is why we stand here today arguing for what we believe is the
most crucial aspect of your empowerment, and that is the right to vote.
We want every senior citizen to be able to vote. We want every student
to be able to vote. We want every legal status citizen to have the
right to vote. Every military personnel to have the right to vote.
Every overseas American to have the right to vote and their vote to be
counted.
But, Mr. Speaker, in doing that, let me make it perfectly clear, I
want their rights to be counted and their right to vote to be filled
with legalities as opposed to illegalities.
Let me raise for my colleagues some of the concerns we have as it
relates to voter intimidation.
{time} 1500
It has been noted by People for the American Way a number of a series
of intimidation. We know how we were intimidated in years passed. I
worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and I worked
in registering individuals to vote in North Carolina and South
Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama. It was interesting to go on
those plantations where sharecroppers still lived and to see the voting
place where they had to go. Some of my colleagues may be reminded of
this. It was a tattered building with a tattered sheet covering where
one would vote, and the overseer stood by while sharecroppers voted.
That was intimidation. And, in fact, in places where I went, an
overseer stood by with a rifle on his lap as those who wanted to vote
tried to walk past him. That is intimidation. And we must come away
from that, come through the life that Fannie Lou Hamer led on her
plantation in Mississippi where she was intimidated for even trying to
participate in the Mississippi Democratic Party and in the Democratic
National Convention.
So intimidation we know, and we stand today to argue against that.
And some of that intimidation still continues: challenges and threats
against individual voters at the polls by armed private guards; off-
duty law enforcement officers; local creditors; fake poll monitors and
poll workers and monitors; signs posted at polling places warning of
penalties for voter fraud and noncitizen voting or illegally urging
support for a candidate; poll workers assisting voters in filling out
their ballots and instructing them how to vote; criminal tampering with
voter registration rolls and records; fliers and radio ads containing
false information about where, when, and how to vote; voter eligibility
and false threat of penalty; setting up roadblocks near polling areas
to intimidate voters; internal memos from party officials in which the
explicit goal of expressing African American voter turnout is outlined;
in 1982 in the State of Texas, having individuals in all polls in the
African American community, standing and intimidating voters,
intimidating the precinct judges, asking them whether they were
allowing voters to come in without their identification.
This is voter intimidation, and this is what we have to cease and
desist; and I would argue vigorously that, in doing so, we need to use
existing laws of the land. We need to also make note that many of our
cities, counties, and voting jurisdictions have utilized the electronic
voting.
And so I will be offering a resolution to offer to this House that we
demand that wherever it is possible that individual jurisdiction be
required, be encouraged, be asked to include a paper trail. In the
Federal legislation that we passed in this Congress in the last
session, we were not able to get into that legislation a system of
paper balloting. And so we are finding out in a very frightening way
that electronic voting systems can be tampered with. We in Harris
County requested our county clerk to include a paper trail. That county
clerk refused, and we are contemplating a lawsuit. And I would
encourage jurisdictions around the country, it is not too late to go in
and seek injunctive relief even to require their jurisdiction, some of
them wealthy enough to be able to implement it at this time, to put in
the paper trail necessary to protect the vote.
[[Page H7229]]
Might I bring to the attention of my colleagues that, even though I
started out by saying that I hope that we will ensure that the votes
are taken and counted of all Americans, those overseas, those in the
United States military, that none of their rights be denied, that no
Secretary of State like the Secretary of State in the State of Florida
in 2000 be able to close off the lights and close the door and the
curtains on the various counties that were counting votes on that
fateful Sunday when we heard from the Secretary of State of Florida who
said, We will not take any more of the recounted votes; your time is
up, and those votes will not be counted. We hope we will hear none of
that anymore.
But let me remind my colleagues that we still have to perform
oversight. My understanding is that the Pentagon is asking that the
votes of the United States military not be sent to the various election
polling places or the places where they belong, but they are being
asked to be sent to the Pentagon. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether
the Pentagon has ever cited itself as a duly counted electoral system
where they have the oversight and the checks and balances to be able to
open the thousands upon thousands of ballots coming in from enlisted
personnel, National Guard and Reservists, sergeants, and others that
might be intimidated by having to send their ballots to the Pentagon.
If the chairman would please stand just for a moment. And I see the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) on the floor,
and I know that he will be joining us, but I just want to be able to
conclude on a final point. But with our great respect for the United
States military, I know that we honor Shoshana Johnson and we have
military now in respective communities, our respect for them on the
front lines of Afghanistan and Iraq; but I would ask the chairman that
we come together around a resolution, one, but also a letter inquiring
about the process on behalf of our constituents who will be voting and
sending their ballots, will they give us a precise process of how these
ballots will be going to the Pentagon and ask for a reordering of that
order such that those ballots can go somewhere else.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one of the things
that, as she was speaking, I could not help but think about is how in
my district when we go to vote, the voter, and I am sure this is the
case throughout the United States, is entitled to a certain level of
privacy to cast their ballot. And certainly when the gentlewoman raised
the question of what happens to ballots when perhaps they will be sent
to the Pentagon, the privacy question comes up, the integrity of the
system comes up. So I agree with the gentlewoman totally that we should
write a letter. We will do that, and we will look into further action
so that we can guarantee the integrity of those ballots coming from our
military.
They are citizens of the United States of America. They are entitled
to the same rights as all others. So it just seems logical to me that
on their behalf and certainly on behalf of all citizens of our country,
we will want to ensure the integrity and perhaps have that order
reversed so that they could go directly, as they would normally, to
whatever the various precincts are in their local voting offices
throughout the country. So we will take a look at that and write that
letter
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I thank the chairman very much for his response.
Just in closing, it is interesting. This is the most powerful country
in the world and the country that has the greatest technology. Would
one not think that we would have the kind of precise technology,
because these are absentee ballots, that could ZIP code these military
personnel and send them back to their jurisdictions without tampering
with and not going by way of the Pentagon? I think that would be
certainly an appropriate manner of handling those particular ballots.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one of the things that
I think we have to keep in mind is a lot of people listen to this
discussion and say it seems like these Members of Congress are not
trusting the military. It is not about trusting. It is a thing of
integrity of a system. One of the things that I think people want to
know is that their ballot and the ballot of their sons and daughters
and friends and neighbors are, in fact, being counted properly and
being sent to the appropriate places so that we can maintain that
integrity. And we do not even want the appearance of any kind of
improper procedures.
One thing is for sure. When we talk about a democracy, we also talk
about people's confidence in that democracy. As I am sure the
gentlewoman has seen and heard, there were some people who were so
discouraged by the 2000 election, they began to question why they
should vote. And, of course, we have a ready answer to that. But the
fact is we want everybody to know that their vote will be properly
counted and that they will have the opportunity to vote. So I think
people need to take all of that into consideration because I think it
is very important.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I agree with the gentleman, and I think the idea of this
Special Order is to put forward one term, and that is ``preparedness.''
We want not only the people of America to be prepared to vote, but we
want the governmental entities and those of us who have responsibility
and have respect for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the integrity of
the voting process to be prepared.
So my final words are these: One, I think that we should collaborate
around this issue of dealing with the paper trail. I know that we will
be studying the issue in Texas, and it may warrant litigation in terms
of insisting that our particular county look into and pursue
establishing a paper trail. My understanding is that constituents
around the Nation are particularly frightened by the fact that their
votes can be tampered with.
The second thing is for every poll where someone else has a poll
watcher, we need to make sure that we have one. I say to all of the
voters who may be going to vote to be prepared with every documentation
that they need and be aware of the fact that they have a right to
attest their authority, they are called many different names, but an
affidavit that they can do so. Be prepared that they can attest the
fact that they have the right to vote.
And, lastly, I would say do not leave a voting place. I am not asking
people to get arrested en mass. But let me say this: Voting is
important. If one feels civil disobedience warrants persisting in
staying at the poll, they have the right to be able to get all the
information that they need before they are taken away or shunned away
from the poll. I say to them to wait on someone to come to them. There
will be legal teams all over this country who will be assisting them,
but to wait before being turned away so that they can get the right
information or call back or come back.
This will not be a repeat of 2000. And it will not be that because we
are going to be prepared and we are going to utilize every aspect of
the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and local
jurisdictional law, including the elections legislation that we passed,
to make sure that every vote is counted. And I hope, as we move toward
November, we will find ourselves prepared.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I was thinking as she
talked about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in a way it is a kind of
sad thing that we are even standing here talking about this, talking
about guaranteeing the right to vote and to have a vote counted here in
2004. But we do and we have to stand up. Every second January, come
January, we put up our right hand and we swear to uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and part of that Constitution is our
right to vote.
So I am very pleased that the gentleman from North Carolina has
joined us. The next chairman of our Congressional Black Caucus, who is,
without a doubt, one who has consistently looked at our Constitution
very carefully, as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has.
And whenever there was what might appear as a violation of that
Constitution, they have consistently raised that on the floor of this
great House. And I think history will go down and it will be written,
and maybe hundreds of years from now somebody may just be flipping
through some pages and hear about members of
[[Page H7230]]
the Congressional Black Caucus, particularly those in the Committee on
the Judiciary, standing up for what they believe in.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my appreciation.
I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) mentioning our
service on the Committee on the Judiciary. Just to add that we spent
some time in the Committee on the Judiciary this morning with, again,
legislation that did eliminate opportunity to enter into the courthouse
on questions of grievance regarding in this instance the Pledge of
Allegiance.
But I think the important point is that we stand here today talking
about voter rights when we have legislative initiatives by this body,
and I think our colleagues need to hear this, that are slamming the
door shut. So for all we know, Mr. Speaker, we may talk about going
into the courthouse on the Voting Rights Act or going into the
courthouse on electronic voting, and before we know it, we may have
legislation saying no one is allowed to pursue Federal court
jurisdiction or appellate court jurisdiction on issues dealing with the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. I just thought I would share that, as the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) was coming to the microphone,
to let everyone know how serious we are today. I thank the gentleman
for his leadership.
I rise today to address an issue that I and members of the
Congressional Black Caucus have worked tirelessly for, the issue of
voters rights. The issue of voters rights is one that is central to our
democratic government based on the Constitution and it is an issue that
will be fundamental in this year's Presidential election.
The importance of each American's vote can not be understated; it was
former President Lyndon Johnson who said: ``The vote is the most
powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and
destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are
different from other men.'' Voters rights are guaranteed to every
American, but clearly voters rights have been more dubious for minority
voters, especially those in the African American community.
The Fourteenth Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized
in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. The citizens of Florida were denied equal
protection from faulty voting equipment, misinformed or unschooled
Election Day poll workers and confusing ballots. They were denied equal
protection from unreliable vote tabulation methods that were not able
to discern voter intent. They were denied an opportunity, tested and
approved by time to use manual hand counts to determine the intent of a
voter to vote and for which, if any, candidate they desired to vote
for.
Disparate treatment of voters in our Nation is inherent in the arcane
and disjointed method of local, State, and national elections. The
condition of the Florida election was the fruit of this disparity in
that the variations in the methods of voting lead to different methods
of tallying votes and different success or failure rates in the
accuracy of those tallies. The more modern pencil mark to fill an oval
on a paper ballot that is fed into a computer to tally votes was found
to only hold a 3 percent error rate while the punch card method of
tallying votes had a 15 percent error rate.
Congress passed the voting Rights Act of 1965 in response to
widespread evidence of disenfranchisement of black citizens in several
southern States, of which Florida is numbered. This act was designed to
protect citizens' right to vote primarily by forbidding these States
from using tests of any kind to determine eligibility to vote, by
requiring these States to obtain Federal approval before enacting any
election laws, and by assigning Federal officials to monitor the
registration process in certain localities.
It is clear that the injured party in the 2000 elections was the
voters of Florida who had to suffer through the biased actions of a
Secretary of State who acted as the Co-State Chair for the Bush for
President effort in the State of Florida. The voters struggled to be
heard in the face of repeated challenges and disruptions designed to
end an order process of discerning voter intent when the machine failed
in that determination. A constitution is the property of a nation, and
not of those who exercise the government.
The United States Declaration of Independence states, ``We hold these
Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to
secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right
of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing
its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness.'' The Declaration of Independence continues
with, ``. . . when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Objective, evinces a Design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
This passage of the Declaration of Independence adequately describes
the plight of minority and poor Americans in their struggle for an
equal voice in the governance of our Nation's democracy.
African American voters were there on Election Day, but soon after
the election was over we knew that something had happened to stop our
vote from being counted with its full effect.
In the 19th Century following the Civil War, the Congress passed 2
amendments to the Constitution; the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
in order to guarantee the equal rights of African Americans and grant
voting rights to black men. Following the enactment of these two
amendments 22 African Americans served in the Congress and over 700
served in Southern State legislatures, with some States being nominally
under black control. Unfortunately by 1902 whites found enough ways to
prevent the intent of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments from
being followed that the number of African American elected officials
dwindled to zero. It took over 70 years for the voting rights of
African Americans to be restored to a level where the election of
African Americans to Federal offices was to some degree assured from
disruption due to the institutional blockade of African American
citizens voting rights.
The battle over at-large elections which effectively diluted black
votes was not overcome until 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled in
White v. Register that at-large elections schemes were
unconstitutional, if such schemes diluted minority voting strength
which they did in most cases. While we were victorious in that battle,
the challenges to obtaining true voting rights have been evident till
this day and we must fix what is a flawed and prejudicial system.
The 2000 presidential election revealed a plethora of barriers to
voting. In NAACP hearings on voting irregularities we heard testimony
from law enforcement, poll workers, educators, civil rights
organizations, state and federal legislators, and disenfranchised
voters recounting the following:
1. That citizens who were properly registered were denied the right
to vote because election officials could not find their names on the
precinct rolls;
2. That registered voters were denied the right to vote because of
minor discrepancies and clerical errors;
3. That first-time voters who sent in voter registration forms prior
to the state's deadline for registration were denied the right to vote
because their registration forms were not processed;
4. That African American voters were singled out for criminal
background checks at some precincts and that one voter who had never
been arrested was denied the right to vote after being told that he had
a prior felony conviction;
5. That African American voters were required to show photo
identification while white voters at the same precincts were not
subjected to the same requirement;
6. That voters who requested absentee ballots did not receive them
but were denied the right to vote when they went to the precinct in
person on Election Day;
[[Page H7231]]
7. That hundreds of absentee ballots of registered voters in various
counties throughout the nation were improperly rejected by the
Supervisor of Elections and not counted;
8. That African American voters who requested assistance at the polls
were denied assistance;
9. That African American voters who requested the assistance of a
volunteer to translate the ballot for limited proficient voters were
denied such assistance.
There allegations raise potential violations of Sections 2 and 5 of
the Voter Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973, as well as several
provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C.
sec. 1973gg-5(a) which affirms the right of every U.S. citizen to case
a ballot and have that ballot be counted must be protected without
compromise and without regard to the voter's race. This was truly a
time in which justice delayed was justice denied. In addition to the
number of allegations of voting irregularities that occurred in the
State of Florida, it was revealed that a total of 180,000 ballots were
not counted in Florida's presidential vote. The Gore Campaign, members
of the Congressional Black Caucus, civil rights attorney's and the
disenfranchised voters themselves sought for every Floridian's vote to
be counted by requesting a hand count in the 4 counties that
demonstrated voting irregularities. In these 4 counties in which the
hand count was sought--all heavily Democratic areas--over 73,000
ballots were not counted in the presidential tally.
Beyond these egregious voting irregularities, millions of Americans
were denied their fundamental right to vote simply because they were
unable to vote due to prior work commitments. In fact, the great untold
story in the last election and in most elections in America is the
voting disparity that exists between those who can afford to take time
off work to vote and those who cannot. Moreover, this perpetual
disparity has caused a voting gap that threatens the very fabric of our
representational democracy and has challenged our nation to find a
solution that addresses this great disparity.
In the words of ``Freedom,'' a poem by Langston Hughes we hear the
threat to our national existence, ``freedom will not come today, this
year nor ever, through compromise and fear. I have as much right as the
other fellow has to stand on my two feet and own the land. I tire so of
hearing people say, let things take their course. Tomorrow is another
day. I do not need my freedom when I'm dead. I cannot live on
tomorrow's bread. Freedom is a strong seed planted in the soil. I live
here too. I want freedom just as you.''
The question before us now is how do we make sure that this type of
disenfranchisement never again rears its ugly head, especially in a
year when we again face a Presidential election bound to be decided by
a few thousand or even hundred votes. We know that in 2001 here in the
State of Florida they passed a $32 million election reform package. The
measure is supposed to eliminate punch card and hand-counted paper
ballots and all mechanical-lever voting. Because of this reform, never
again in the State of Florida will an election be decided based on
hanging, dangling or pregnant chads. However, just because we may have
eliminated antiquated voting systems in this State, it does not mean
that voters can not be disenfranchised. More modern electronic voting
systems have shown to have a multitude of questions surrounding them.
First, is the question of fraud, these new electronic systems must be
proven to be tamper proof from outside sources. More so, we must insure
that the companies who supply these machines do not have any partisan
stake in the election they are helping to determine. These questions
were raised earlier this year about Diebold Inc, which will supply many
of the electronic voting machines throughout the country and whose
President has very close links to President Bush and the Republican
Party. While I do not make accusations that have not been fully proven,
my point is that even with newer and more advanced equipment there are
questions and issues that need to be addressed. Many of these
electronic voting machines do not even leave a paper trail record to
review in case questions of fraud or tampering were ever raised in an
election. As our society has grown more technological we have come to
depend more and more on computers, but I think we all still recognize
that while computers are free from bias, they are not completely free
from error or misuse. Which is why I was truly disappointed to learn
that the Governor of this State, Jeb Bush recently denied a request to
conduct a statewide, independent audit of voting systems. This despite
the fact that electronic voting computers crashed in May and November
of 2003, erasing information from the September 2002 gubernatorial
primaries and other elections. I am disappointed that officials in this
State or any other State in this Nation for that matter would not take
every step possible to ensure a proper election this year. The truth
unfortunately, is that proper voting rights is not as much of an issue
for some people whose rights have always been protected and recognized,
as it is for people in our community who after more than two hundred
years are still longing for true equality.
While there is much reform to be done on the local, State and
national level to make sure that every vote is counted, the real reform
begins and ends with each of us. We must continue to go to the polls
and we must be vigilant. In this year's election if we see a brother or
sister being told that they are not registered even though they are or
we see a fellow neighbor being harassed while others are allowed to
vote freely; we must stand up for them. Together as a community there
is no hurdle we can not overcome, we will not allow our rights to be
frittered away. It is equality we have strived for since before we were
even born and it is equality we will achieve because our struggle is
righteous and our means are just.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. And
were the subject of this Special Order not so immeasurably important, I
could spend many minutes talking about the issue that the gentlewoman
from Texas just identified that was dealt with in the Committee on the
Judiciary.
{time} 1515
But if she will be kind enough to allow me, I think I will wait until
next week to make that debate. That bill will be on the floor, and
hopefully, we will have ample opportunity to point that out.
I am honored today to join my colleagues from the Congressional Black
Caucus, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) to be a part of this Special Order which focuses on voter
intimidation and efforts that are being made by some in our society to
deter people who wish to exercise their democratic rights, the right to
vote.
I would be less than honest if I said I was delighted to be here
debating this, because I concur with the chairman of our caucus that
these many years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we would
like to be in a position not to have to be here to engage in these
kinds of discussions on the floor of the House concerning voter
intimidation, deterrence of voters from exercising their right to vote.
And I would add to that that I do not think there would be any people
who would be more delighted on November 3 of this year than the
Congressional Black Caucus if we could stand up and say on November 3
that we overreacted and did not need to be here today talking about
this. But if that eventuality occurs, I am going to get up; I am coming
to the floor to say, I am delighted to say that we overreacted, because
I will be happy about it.
I do not think we can talk about voter intimidation without putting
it in a larger context, and that is the context of democracy. All
around the world, the United States was recognized by country after
country after country as the gold standard for democracy for years and
years and years, and I wish I could say that the United States still
holds that distinction. Unfortunately, we do not have that distinction
anymore.
While we were encouraging the government, the forming government, of
South Africa to assure representation of all factions in their new
government, we were at the same time in the United States Supreme Court
discouraging minority representation in the United States. While we
were encouraging the residents of South Africa to make their ballots
understandable by putting pictures on the ballots if necessary to
identify the candidates, we were at the same time making it impossible
for folks to cast ballots that did not have hanging chads and other
[[Page H7232]]
problems in the United States. While we were encouraging the folks of
South Africa to make it easier for people to vote by allowing voters to
cast their votes on Saturdays and Sundays, in the United States, that
is anathema to us. Although, it seems to me and other members of the
Congressional Black Caucus that that would be the ideal to maximize
voter participation. So we do not have the honor of holding the gold
standard of democracy anymore.
Those of us who believe that, somehow, Florida was the exception
rather than the rule are deluding ourselves because not only in Florida
were we having problems in 2000, but in every single State where votes
were being cast, there were problems with the voting process. And
unfortunately, those problems were disproportionately disqualifying
minority voters from voting and poor people because they had the worst
machines in every jurisdiction.
So if one checks all around America, this is not a Florida problem
that we are talking about. This is a national problem that deprives
America from being able to hold out its chest and say, we are the gold
standard for a democracy. If we ignore that larger context when we talk
about voter intimidation and discouraging people from voting, then we
miss a major point.
Now, there is intimidation going on, and there is discouragement
going on, and I want to make sure that America knows and that everybody
knows that we are preparing to be ready for that kind of intimidation,
discouragement, roadblocks by police, every kind of negative
discouragement of our voters from voting on November 2. We are
preparing to combat that.
It is a shame that somebody could show up at our meeting today and
hand out a flyer saying, we are recruiting 10,000 lawyers to be
available on Election Day in the United States of America. Who could
imagine that we would need 10,000 lawyers to assure that people in the
United States, in our democracy, get to do what our Constitution says
they are entitled to do. There is something wrong with that picture,
and I just wanted to be here today to add my voice to the chairman's
voice and to our caucus' voice that, on November 2, this simply will
not be tolerated.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
statement.
So it is, Mr. Speaker, that, again, the Congressional Black Caucus
stands up for Americans' right to vote and to have their vote counted.
____________________