[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 93 (Monday, July 17, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1432-E1433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




FANNIE LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, AND CORETTA SCOTT KING VOTING RIGHTS ACT 
               REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 13, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 9) to amend 
     the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Norwood Amendment to H.R. 9, the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, 
and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments 
Act of 2006.'' The Norwood Amendment replaces the existing Section 5 
coverage formula with one keyed to whether a jurisdiction has a test or 
device or voter turnout of less than 50 percent in any of the three 
most recent presidential elections. The proponents of the amendment 
claim it is needed to prevent the Supreme Court from striking down the 
Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. Chairman, there are several compelling reasons for rejecting this 
amendment, which I will discuss. But let me respond, Mr. Chairman, to 
the claim that Georgia has suffered enough and should be let out of the 
``penalty box.'' I response is simple: the record amply demonstrates 
that Georgia earned its way into whatever ``penalty box'' it is in and 
it must earn its way out, as eleven local jurisdictions in Virginia 
already have.


              Reasons for Rejecting the Norwood Amendment:

  Mr. Chairman, the claim that the Voting Rights Act faces 
constitutional jeopardy from the Supreme Court if section 5 is not 
gutted is a red herring and is not to be taken seriously. First, the 
Supreme Court has never ruled the Voting Rights Acts or any of its 
provisions unconstitutional and there is no reason to suspect it will 
do so now. The claim that the intent of the Norwood Amendment is to 
save and protect the Voting Rights Act is disingenuous. It is akin to 
destroying the village in order to save it!
  Second, the Norwood Amendment would eviscerate the effectiveness of 
Section 5 by extending its reach nationwide. It accomplishes this 
by basing the pre-clearance ``trigger'' on election turnout in the 
three most recent presidential elections. Extending the reach of 
Section 5 nationwide will weaken it, not strengthen it in at least 
three ways. A ``nationwide'' Section 5 would also be vulnerable to 
constitutional attack as not ``narrowly tailored'' or ``congruent and 
proportional'' to address the harms it is designed to cure, as required 
by the Supreme Court's recent precedents. Section 5 is directed at 
jurisdictions with a history of discriminating against minority voters. 
Nationwide application of Section 5 would be extremely difficult to 
administer, given the volume of voting changes that would have to be 
reviewed. This expansion of coverage would dilute the Department of 
Justice's ability to appropriately focus their work on those 
jurisdictions where there is a history of voting discrimination.

  The lack of understanding of the true purpose and significance of the 
Voting Rights Act on the part of the supporters of the Norwood 
Amendment is most revealed by the desire to extend the reach of Section 
5 nationwide. The proponents of the Norwood Amendment characterize the 
pre-clearance provisions of Section 5 as the ``penalty box,'' reserved 
for those jurisdictions that have ``broken the rules.''
  The right to vote is not a game; it is serious business, and for 
those who led the fight to secure that right for African-Americans, it 
was deadly serious. Section 5 is not punitive; it prohibits 
discriminatory changes affecting the right to vote. The Voting Rights 
Act has no provisions that name particular states or areas. Section 5 
is aimed at a type of problem, not a state or region. It is designed to

[[Page E1433]]

prevent backsliding by states whose discriminatory literacy tests were 
outlawed by the original act in 1965. Section 4 banned literacy tests 
in states where they were used to discriminate, but experience showed 
that when one method of voting discrimination was blocked--either 
through court action or a new law--another method would suddenly appear 
as a replacement. Congress therefore included the Section 5 
preclearance provision to prevent the implementation of new 
discriminatory laws. The objections made since 1965 showed the covered 
jurisdictions have attempted to use gerrymandering and other forms of 
discrimination to abridge the right to vote. Section 5 has focused on 
these efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, utilizing recent presidential election turnout data to 
determine who should be covered by Section 5 preclearance confuses the 
symptom with the disease. In 1965, Congress used registration and 
turnout data to select which states should be subject to federal pre-
approval of voting changes because that was the most efficient way to 
identify those places with the longest and worst history of voter 
disfranchisement and entrenched discrimination and blatant racism by 
recalcitrant jurisdictions. Congress understood that while a multitude 
of formulas could be conjured to identify which governmental units 
would be subject to preclearance, there was and could be only one way 
for a covered jurisdiction to overcome the need to preclear its 
election laws, and that is by satisfying an independent federal 
judiciary that it had renounced its discriminatory past and could be 
trusted not to employ any artifice that would result in a return to 
those days of shame.

  Mr. Chairman, the coverage formula does not need to be changed to 
bring it to up to date. The current formula correctly identifies 
jurisdictions that have the longest and worst history of voter 
disenfranchisement and entrenched discrimination. Jurisdictions free of 
discrimination for ten years can come out from under coverage. Those 
with continuing problems remain covered. And those where a court finds 
new constitutional violations can become covered. If the existing 
coverage formula were to be replaced with a formula that relies on 
1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential election data, it would amount to a 
repeal of Section 5, even though we know that voting discrimination 
continues in the currently covered jurisdictions.
  Last, the Norwood Amendment undermines the constitutionality of a 
renewed Section 5. The current coverage formula targets jurisdictions 
where Congress found a record of pervasive discrimination in voting on 
the basis of race. There is no evidence that the new triggers relied 
upon in the Norwood Amendment will target such jurisdictions, and only 
those jurisdictions, with a history of racial discrimination when its 
comes to its citizens' exercise of the franchise:
  The Norwood Amendment is not likely to pass constitutional muster 
because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve the Congressional 
objective of subjecting only those jurisdictions with a history of 
voter discrimination and electoral racism to the pre-clearance 
provisions of Section 5.


                               Conclusion

  The jurisdictions covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 
earned their way in; they can earn their way out through the bailout 
provisions of the Act. What they have not earned is for this Congress 
to end preclearance requirements for where there is a continuing need 
for such oversight, as the Texas mid-decade redistricting case and the 
Georgia voter identification case make clear.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
    

                          ____________________