[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9150-S9151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS AND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, the debate over the nomination
of Judge William Pryor to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals included
a discussion of Judge Pryor's call to repeal section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act--the centerpiece of that landmark statute--because, as he
asserted in congressional testimony, it ``is an affront to federalism
and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness.'' His
testimony demonstrated that Judge Pryor is more concerned with
preventing an ``affront'' to the States' dignity than with guaranteeing
all citizens the right to cast an equal vote.
In the Republican defense of Judge Pryor, it was suggested that
Congressman John Lewis, a stalwart leader of the civil rights movement,
somehow agreed with Judge Pryor's opposition to section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act because of a statement Congressman Lewis had made about a
specific redistricting plan.
Congressman Lewis has made clear many times, most recently in a July
14 letter to me, his disagreement with the views of Judge Pryor and his
strong support for the Voting Rights Act--and particularly section 5.
Congressman Lewis wrote:
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act must be renewed. There
is a continued, proven need for the pre-clearance provisions
of the Voting Rights Act, which ensure that local and state
jurisdiction do not develop laws that intentionally or
unintentionally discriminate against groups who may have
little or no voice in the establishment of those laws.
His statements of support for one particular redistricting plan in no
way diminish his commitment to the Voting Rights Act.
Congressman Lewis believes, as do I, that the Voting Rights Act is
our most important protection guaranteeing that no individuals or
groups are without a voice in this democracy. As he so eloquently
noted:
The history of the right to vote in America is a history of
conflict, of struggling for the right to vote. Many people
died trying to protect that right. I was beaten and jailed
because I stood up for it. For millions like me, the struggle
for the right to vote is not mere history; it is experience.
The experience of the last two presidential elections tells
us that the struggle is not over and that the special
provisions of the Voting Rights Act are still necessary.
I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Lewis's letter be printed in
the Record at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
[[Page S9151]]
Mr. LEAHY. In contrast, Judge Pryor's statements about section 5
reflect a long-discredited view of the Voting Rights Act. Since the
enactment of the statute in 1965, every Supreme Court case to address
the question has rejected the claim that section 5 is an ``affront'' to
our system of federalism. Whether under Earl Warren, Warren Burger, or
William Rehnquist, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
guaranteeing all citizens the right to cast an equal vote is essential
to our democracy--no a ``burden'' that has ``outlived its usefulness.''
Indeed, Congressman Lewis sponsored a resolution, which is being
considered on the floor of the House today, commemorating the passage
of the Voting Rights Act 40 years ago this summer. The resolution
recalls the struggle for the act's landmark protections--from the
brutal suppression of marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma,
AL, on ``Bloody Sunday'' in March 1965, to the passage of the bill by a
bipartisan Congress months later--and reaffirms its importance. Forty
years after President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law,
Congressman Lewis and I remain committed to this essential piece of
legislation.
Exhibit 1
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2005.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: During the Senate debate on the
nomination of Judge William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals, Senator Saxby Chambliss quoted a few words of my
testimony in the case of the State of Georgia v. John
Ashcroft, and implied that I agree with Judge Pryor's
assessment of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. I take
issue with Senator Chambliss's remarks and want to make clear
that his reference to my remarks were taken out of context.
I regret that my colleague, the senior Senator from
Georgia, would use my support of a Georgia redistricting plan
to justify the confirmation of Justice William Pryor to the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals. I strongly disagree with the
views of Judge Pryor and do not think he is fit to serve.
I further regret that Senator Chambliss would use my very
general statements to suggest that I am not in favor of
renewing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act must be renewed. There is a continued,
proven need for the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting
Rights Act, which ensure that local and state jurisdictions
do not develop laws that intentionally or unintentionally
discriminate against groups who may have little or no voice
in the establishment of those laws.
We have come a long way in the last two decades, and
certainly have come a long way since the 1960's, however,
voting obstacles and disparities still exist for far too many
minorities. In Florida in 2000, voters were confused by their
ballots, polling equipment broke down, and polls did not open
as scheduled. In Ohio in 2004, many people stood in what
appeared to be unmovable lines for eight and nine hours
trying to exercise their right to vote. There were an
inadequate number of voting machines and in some instances,
bogus officials were sent to polling stations and were found
disseminating misinformation and questioning the choices of
voters.
As a result of these problems, many Americans were denied
the right to vote. These truths continue to demonstrate the
importance of the Voting Rights Act to prevent discrimination
and to ensure that people are not denied the right to vote.
The vote is the most powerful, nonviolent tool that our
citizens have in a democratic society, and nothing but
nothing should discourage, hamper or interfere with the right
of every citizen to cast a vote for the person of their
choice.
The history of the right to vote in America is a history of
conflict, of struggling for the right to vote. Many people
died trying to protect that right. I was beaten, and jailed
because I stood up for it. For millions like me, the struggle
for the right to vote is not mere history; it is experience.
The experience of the last two presidential elections tells
us that the struggle is not over and that the special
provisions of the Voting Rights Act are still necessary. We
should not take a step backward, when there is still much to
be done to ensure every vote and every voter counts.
As we work toward reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we
must move in a deliberative manner, conduct open and adequate
hearings, and ensure that we create the appropriate
legislative history and factual findings. I look forward to
working with you to protect the voting rights of all
Americans, by reauthorizing and strengthening the provisions
of the Voting Rights Act.
Sincerely,
John Lewis,
Member of Congress.
____________________