[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.

                          ____________________