[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 19, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7902-S7905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   VOTING RIGHTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, There are few things as critical to our 
Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. Like the rights 
guaranteed by the first amendment, the right to vote is fundamental 
because it secures the effective exercise of all other rights. As 
people are able to register, vote, and elect candidates of their 
choice, their interests and rights get attention. The very legitimacy 
of our democratic Government is dependent on the access all Americans 
have to the electoral process.
  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 transformed the landscape of political 
inclusion. As amended, the act contains important provisions for 
language assistance. Section 203, added as part of the second 
reauthorization of the Voting Rights in 1975, broadened this landscape 
by allowing millions more American citizens to participate fully in our 
democracy. Section 203, which requires bilingual voting assistance for 
certain language minority groups, was enacted to remove obstacles to 
voting posed by illiteracy and lack of bilingual language assistance 
resulting in large measure from unequal educational opportunities 
available to minorities. These provisions helped overcome 
discriminatory barriers which limited access to the political process 
for language minority groups and resulted in low turnout and 
registration. Along with section 4(f)(4), section 203 has led to 
extraordinary gains in representation and participation made by Asian 
Americans and Hispanic Americans.
  Hispanic-American populations have been one of the primary minority 
language groups to benefit from the protections of the bilingual 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act. For example, effective 
implementation of the bilingual provisions in San Diego County, CA, 
helped increase voter registration by more than 20 percent. And voter 
turnout among Hispanic Americans in New Mexico rose 26 percent between 
2000 and 2004 after television and radio spots were aired in districts 
with Spanish-educated listeners about voter registration and absentee 
ballots. Yet more needs to be done. Historically, Hispanic Americans 
have low voter turnout and less than 1 percent of all elected offices 
in the United States are held by Hispanic Americans.
  I was troubled during the immigration debate that the rhetoric of 
some Members of the Senate appeared to be anti-Hispanic in supporting 
the adoption of an English language amendment. Senator Salazar and I 
wrote to the President following up on this provision. We asked whether 
the President will continue to implement the language outreach policies 
of President Clinton's Executive Order No. 13166. A prompt and 
straightforward affirmative answer would have gone a long way. Sadly, 
we have received no response from this White House. I have, however, 
raised the matter when the opportunity presented itself with the 
Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney General and both have assured me 
that the Bush administration will continue to adhere to the outreach 
efforts of the Clinton Executive order.
  I understand why those efforts to amend the immigration bill to make 
English the official or national language provoked a reaction and 
seemed mean-spirited to so many. It elicited the extraordinary May 19 
letter from the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican 
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association 
of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund, the National Council of 
La Raza and the National Puerto Rican Coalition and from a larger 
coalition of interested parties from 96 national and local 
organizations.
  Until that vote, in our previous 230 years we had not found it 
necessary or wise to adopt English as our official or national 
language. I believe it was in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that the 
State legislature shortly after the Revolutionary War authorized 
official publication of Pennsylvania's laws in German as well as 
English to serve the German-speaking population of that State. We have 
been a confident Nation unafraid to hear expressions in a variety of 
languages and willing to reach out to all within our borders. That 
tradition is reflected in section 203 of the Voting Rights Act and in 
President Clinton's Executive Order No. 13166. It is an honorable and 
just tradition.
  We demean our history and our welcoming tradition when we disparage 
languages other than English and those who speak them. I have spoken 
about our including Latin phrases on our official seal and the many 
States that include mottos and phrases in Latin, French and Spanish on 
their State flags. We need not fear other languages. We would do better 
to do more to encourage and assist those who wish to be citizens to 
learn English, but we should recognize English, as Senator Salazar's 
amendment suggested, as our common and unifying language.
  I hope that the President will join with us to protect language 
minority voters. As a presidential candidate, then-Governor Bush told a 
New Hampshire audience in September 1999, ``English-only would mean to 
people `me, not you.' As the Washington Times noted recently:

       Mr. Bush speaks some Spanish and occasionally peppers 
     speeches and conversations with words and phrases from the 
     language. Speaking to a group of adults taking civics lessons 
     yesterday at the Catholic Charities-operated Juan Diego 
     Center, he lapsed into Spanish. Asked whether Mr. Bush 
     planned to drop Spanish from his stump speeches, a White 
     House spokeswoman said she does not expect that to happen.

  The White House, government agencies and a number of Senators include 
Spanish language outreach on their official government Web sites. I am 
glad that they do. Ironically, some who pushed most strongly for some 
variant of English-only treatment in the immigration bill have bent our 
rules to address the Senate in Spanish.
  We have been engaged in a contentious debate about immigrants who are 
not yet citizens, which is unfortunate. I wish we could join together 
to pass fair and comprehensive immigration reform. But the issue 
related to section 203 and section 4(f)4 of the Voting Rights Act 
affects American citizens. These provisions provide assistance to 
Native Americans and indigenous peoples, who speak languages which 
preceded the first English speakers on this continent. These are 
citizens who are trying to vote but many of them are struggling with 
the English language due to disparities in education and the 
incremental process of learning. It is imperative that all citizens be 
able to exercise their rights as citizens, particularly a right as 
fundamental as the

[[Page S7903]]

right to vote. Renewing the language provisions of the Voting Rights 
Act that are expiring and continue to be needed, will help make that a 
reality.

  At this time I would like to summarize some of the evidence received 
by the Senate Judiciary Committee demonstrating the continuing need for 
sections 203 and 4(f)4.
  We received extensive testimony about past and continuing educational 
disparities in jurisdictions covered by section 203 and section 4(f)4. 
According to multiple witnesses, many Alaska Natives, Native Americans, 
Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans suffer from inadequate 
educational opportunities to learn English. Unfortunately, our 
Judiciary Committee record demonstrates that the high illiteracy rates 
experienced by language minorities result from the failure of State and 
local officials to afford equal educational opportunities.
  Several witnesses testified that these educational disparities are 
the major form of discrimination against language minorities. John 
Trasvina, president of MALDEF, testified, ``while they may speak 
conversational English well, these U.S. citizens may not be fully 
proficient because they were intentionally denied the academic 
instruction necessary to vote effectively in English-only elections 
that employ complicated language and terminology.'' The problem of 
unequal educational opportunities existed before the Voting Rights Act 
was passed in 1965 and continues today. Language minority children who 
were educated in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and given unequal education 
opportunities are the adults that today need the assistance of sections 
203 and 4(f)(4). Children who are in schools today where they receive 
unequal education will need the assistance of these provisions to fully 
participate in the political process as adults.
  Over the course of nine hearings, we heard and received testimony 
that not only are all states with the most limited English proficient 
students covered by section 203, but all the school districts with most 
limited English proficient students are also covered by section 203. 
These children will first begin to vote over the next 25 years while 
this proposed reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act is in effect, 
and they will not have had equal access to education and the 
opportunity to learn English.
  In Alaska, which has the single largest indigenous population in the 
United States, an attorney for Native American Rights Fund testified 
about the dramatic educational disparity between Native people and non-
Natives. Only 75 percent of all Alaska Natives completed high school 
compared to 90 percent of non-Natives. And still Alaska persists in 
holding all-English elections--in violation of section 203--which has 
impacted Alaska Natives' ability to vote with their turnout lagging 
behind statewide voter turnout by 17 percent.
  According to the 2000 Census, the educational attainment of Hispanic 
Americans nationally is also lacking. Only 52.4 percent of all Hispanic 
Americans have a high school education or more, compared to 80.4 
percent for all persons in the United States. Efforts to combat this 
educational disparity have resulted in dozens of lawsuits against 
states for failing to provide equal education to native and nonnative 
English speakers. We received testimony that successful school funding 
cases have been brought in half of all the section 203 covered States 
and are pending in many others. In Arizona in 2005, a Federal court 
cited the State of Arizona for contempt for failing over the course of 
the preceding 13 years to provide opportunities for Spanish-language 
students to learn English in the public schools. The court has been 
fining the State at least $500,000 a day until the problem is corrected 
and equal opportunities are provided to the 175,000 English language 
learner students estimated to be in Arizona's schools in 2006.
  And I personally understand the challenges of learning English as 
your second language. As I have said before, my wife was born of 
immigrant parents and English became her second language. My mother was 
born of immigrant parents, with English as her second language. 
Fortunately, they learned it as young people. But for adults learning 
English, it can be much harder.
  We received extensive testimony that classes for adult students to 
increase their English proficiency are too few and oversubscribed. 
Senator Kennedy told us that in his own section 203 covered 
jurisdiction of Boston, the waiting period for English as a second 
language, ESL, classes is 17,000 students long which translates into a 
wait of as much as 3 years. In New York City, the ESL need is estimated 
to be 1 million, but only 41,347 adults were able to enroll in 2005 
because of limited availability. It is a sad fact that most adult ESL 
programs no longer keep waiting lists because of the extreme demand, 
but use lotteries in which at least 75 percent are turned away, and the 
waiting time can be several years.
  Continuing acts of discrimination against language minorities, such 
as those contained in the committee record, chill minority voting 
participation denying these citizens equal access to the balloting 
process. We heard countless examples of the continuing discrimination 
that minority language citizens face when participating or attempting 
to participate in the political process. These experiences will no 
doubt stick with each voter for some time.
  Civil Rights organizations testified about numerous instances of 
discrimination that were documented while monitoring elections in 
covered jurisdictions in New York. For example, in the 2001 elections 
at Public School 228, a polling site coordinator, trying to thwart 
bilingual interpreters from performing their duties, yelled ``You f---
ing Chinese, there's too many of you!'' In 2002, at Public School 82 
and at the Botanical Garden, some of the comments made to Asian-
American voters included poll workers calling South Asian voters 
``terrorists'' and mocking the physical features of Asian eyes. While 
monitoring the 2003 elections, independent observers reported that in 
Public School 126 in Manhattan's Chinatown, poll inspectors ridiculed a 
voter's surname--Ho; in Public School 115 in Queens, disparaging 
remarks were directed at South Asian voters, with one coordinator 
continuously referring to herself as a ``U.S. citizen'' and that she, 
unlike them, was ``born here'' and that the other workers needed to 
``keep an eye'' on all South Asian voters; at Flushing Bland Center in 
Queens, the site coordinator complained that Asian-American voters 
``should learn to speak English.''

  During the 2004 election, a Hispanic voter in San Antonio, TX, was 
told by an election judge that she was not on a voter registration list 
and could not cast a provisional ballot, despite the recently enacted 
Help America Vote Act which provides for provisional ballots in such 
situations. She and her family had been voting at the same polling 
station for over 20 years. The election judge refused to unlock the 
provisional ballot box until a Mexican American Legal Defense and 
Education Fund--MALDEF--attorney arrived and negotiated on behalf of 
the voter.
  And the House of Representatives received equally disturbing 
testimony which was incorporated into our own Record. In 2003, the 
chairman of the Texas House Redistricting Committee stated that he did 
not intend to hold redistricting hearings in the Rio Grande Valley in 
South Texas, where many U.S. citizens are limited English proficient 
Spanish speakers, because only two members of the Redistricting 
Committee spoke Spanish. Chairman Crabb stated that the members of the 
committee who did not speak Spanish ``would have a very difficult time 
if we were out in an area other than Austin or other English speaking 
areas to be able to have committee hearings to be able to converse with 
the people that did not speak English.'' Many citizens living in areas 
of Texas with high concentrations of limited English proficient 
citizens would have been excluded from participating in local 
Redistricting Committee hearings had Hispanic advocates not interceded 
on their behalf. In another part of the country, due to a lack of 
sufficient bilingual ballots, Hispanic voters in Pima County, AZ, were 
forced to crowd around one translated poster of more than a dozen 
initiatives left in a poorly lit area during the 2004 elections.
  Sadly, these examples are not isolated incidents of discrimination. 
Assistant Attorney General Wan Kim testified that the Department of 
Justice has brought more lawsuits to enforce

[[Page S7904]]

the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act in the 
previous 5 years than in all previous years combined. These facts and 
all the other testimony we received in Committee clearly demonstrate 
the ongoing need for section 203's protections and the need that we 
reauthorize these provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
  Of course there are critics. There are critics who say that the 
language assistance provisions in the Voting Rights Act should be 
eliminated entirely because immigrants must learn English to pass the 
citizenship test and therefore should be able to vote in English. This 
argument is unsound for two reasons.
  First, we received overwhelming testimony that the level of English 
proficiency required to pass a citizenship test does not approach the 
level of proficiency required to register to vote or to understand 
ballot measures. Naturalization requires a third or fourth grade 
knowledge of English. Sample test sentences on the Immigration and 
Naturalization Services Web site reveal that no sentence is more than 
10 words long and most are seven or less, containing one or two 
syllable words. In addition, most candidates for citizenship are exempt 
from the English language requirements of the citizenship test because 
they are over the age of 50. Between 1986 and 2004, 9,055,732 people 
were naturalized of which 4,925,553 or 54 percent were over the age of 
50.

  Voting requires English proficiency at levels much higher than the 
citizenship test. A survey of voter registration materials reported on 
the Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity, admitted into 
our Record, found the English grade level of the materials just to 
register to vote was much higher than third or fourth grade knowledge. 
In Texas, a ``covered jurisdiction'' for section 203 purposes, the 
voter registration material required nearly a twelfth grade English 
comprehension for completion with an average of 21 words per sentence. 
The situation is similar in Arizona--ninth grade level with 15 words 
per sentence--California, college freshman level with 22 words per 
sentence, and New Mexico, twelfth grade level with 19 words per 
sentence. This survey only covers materials required to register to 
vote. We also heard testimony about the complexity of actually casting 
votes on ballot initiatives and directions to operate voting machines 
as examples of other English language barriers to language minority 
voters. Ballot initiatives are often long and complicated requiring 
high school level education or higher. Deborah Wright, Acting Assistant 
Registrar-Recorder and County Clerk for Los Angeles County, testified 
that written translations are provided in L.A. County because of the 
complex nature of the issues facing the voters in that state.
  Complex ballots are not limited to California. We received evidence 
of numerous examples. Perhaps the one that struck me the most was a 
2004 Fargo, ND, election ballot, where a single question concerning tax 
increases for infrastructure improvement was one sentence which 
contained 150 words written at the graduate school level.
  Second, most language minorities protected by the Voting Rights Act 
are United States citizens by birth. The vast majority of language 
minorities are not immigrants. In fact, 3.4 million of the 4.5 million 
language minority students in the public schools are native-born U.S. 
citizens. Hispanic Americans are the single largest minority group 
covered by Sections 203 and 4(f)(4). According to 2000 Census data, 
84.2 percent of all Hispanic American citizens in the United States 
were born here. Nearly half of the 11.9 million Asian Americans 
citizens in the United States were born here. Further, 98.6 percent of 
all Puerto Rican persons in the United States are native born and the 
language of Puerto Rican public schools is Spanish with English taught 
as a subject.
  The committee received testimony that although there are costs 
associated with implementing the minority language assistance 
provisions, they are reasonable. Los Angeles, the largest and most 
diverse local election jurisdiction in the United States, provides 
assistance to voters in six languages other than English, and its 
compliance with section 203 requirements costs 10 percent or less of 
its annual election budget. And the Secretary of State for New Mexico 
testified before the House Judiciary Committee characterizing the costs 
of complying with section 203 as, ``a minimal cost to the State of New 
Mexico.''
  One witness testified that she believed the costs of section 203 to 
be extremely burdensome. Linda Chavez, president of One Nation 
Indivisible, testified that Los Angeles County spent $3.3 million in 
2002 to comply with section 203, which she thought was too much to ask 
the County to bear. However, as Deborah Wright's testimony on behalf of 
Los Angeles County made clear this number is a small percentage of the 
overall election budget, and is proportional to the 12.9 million 
limited English proficient voters in her jurisdiction. Ms. Chavez also 
alleged that ``[f]requently the cost of multilingual voter assistance 
is more than half of a jurisdiction's total election costs,'' citing a 
1997 General Accounting Office report. However, a close look at that 
GAO report shows that only 3 out of the 34 jurisdictions surveyed spent 
over 50 percent of their total election budget on multilingual voter 
assistance. Contrary to Ms. Chavez's testimony, the report reveals that 
the costs of providing language assistance made up, on average, a 
little over 10 percent of total expenditures. Ensuring full access to 
American's right to vote certainly is worth this reasonable cost.
  For jurisdictions that struggle with the costs of implementing 
sections 203 or 4(f)(4), the Department of Justice, DOJ, provides 
commendable assistance in managing the costs. Acting Assistant Attorney 
General Bradley Schlozman testified that ``the Civil Rights Division 
recognizes, of course, that States and municipalities do not have 
unlimited budgets, and we have thus designed our enforcement strategy 
to minimize unnecessary costs for local election officials.''
  The DOJ urges covered jurisdictions to avoid costly and unhelpful 
expenditures such as publishing Spanish language notices in English 
language newspapers that are not read by those who rely on the Spanish 
language. Election officials are encouraged to identify the most 
effective and efficient channels of communication that are used by 
private enterprise, service providers, tribal governments, and the like 
to get information effectively to the language minority community at 
low cost.
  The DOJ also encourages the use of fax and e-mail ``information 
trees,'' whereby bilingual election notices are sent at no cost to a 
wide array of businesses, unions, social and fraternal organizations, 
service providers, churches and other organizations with a request that 
these entities make announcements or otherwise disseminate the 
information to their membership's language minority voters. And the DOJ 
has incorporated ``best practices'' from around the country to help 
jurisdictions recruit sufficient numbers of bilingual poll workers. As 
a consequence of the testimony submitted on costs of implementation, we 
determined that costs are both reasonable and manageable.
  There has been some discussion about allegations that in some 
jurisdictions no one uses the translated materials, but we also 
received hard research showing that limited English proficient citizens 
utilize the written and oral assistance offered in jurisdictions, but 
must be made aware it exists. According to a November 2000 exit survey 
of language minority voters in Los Angeles and Orange Counties in 
California, 54 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander voters and 46 
percent of Hispanic voters reported that they would be more likely to 
vote if they received language assistance. These numbers are consistent 
with other exit surveys done in the same counties in March 2000 and 
November 1998.
  Examples of ``low use'' of bilingual election materials are not 
evidence that bilingual materials are not needed. ``Low use'' more 
likely suggests that a jurisdiction is not conducting sufficient 
outreach to the communities that would most benefit. In a survey of 810 
section 203 covered jurisdictions, nearly two-thirds of election 
officials admitted they do not engage in community outreach to covered 
language groups. How are people supposed to know the help is there, if 
there is no community outreach? We can, and we must do better.

[[Page S7905]]

  I am nonetheless happy to report, that when sufficient outreach to 
language minorities is accomplished, materials are being used to assist 
in voting according to evidence received in Committee. In the 1990 
general election, bilingual assistance was used by 25 percent of 
Hispanic voters in the State of Texas, and 18 percent of Hispanic 
voters in the State of California. In the 1988 general election, 
bilingual assistance was used by 20 percent of Hispanic voters in the 
State of New Mexico, 19 percent of Hispanic voters in the State of 
Texas, and 10 percent of Hispanic voters in the State of California.
  Being from a small state, I know the importance and the power of 
community involvement, but perhaps the best evidence we heard that 
shows the power of community outreach was the experience of Chinese-
American voters in King County, WA, which includes the city of Seattle. 
One witness who urged an opt-out provision in section 203 for low use 
cited King County's experience in 2000, the first year it became a 
covered jurisdiction for voters who speak Chinese. That year, according 
to the witness, only 24 Chinese ballots were used, demonstrating that 
ballots were not needed. But that is not the full story. The real story 
is that after that election, officials in King County worked with 
Chinese-American community organizations and increased the publicity 
about the availability of bilingual election materials. In 2005, the 
number of requested Chinese ballots increased by more than 5,800 
percent. It shows the power of community outreach cannot be overstated.
  Much has been made by some witnesses in committee, and even in the 
press, that any provision of bilingual election materials contribute to 
the balkanization of American society. Research offered in committee 
shows this allegation to be faulty. On the contrary, making bilingual 
election materials available has encouraged more language minorities to 
participate in all political aspects of American society. After the 
section 203 coverage was expanded to include a numeric trigger during 
the last reauthorization, the number of Asian Americans registered to 
vote increased dramatically. Between 1996 and 2004, Asian Americans had 
the highest increase of new voter registration--58.7 percent. And we 
received testimony that in districts where the Department of Justice 
has conducted enforcement ensuring bilingual election materials, 
participation not only in voting but in running for political office 
has increased. After an enforcement proceeding in Harris County, TX, 
the Vietnamese-American voter turnout doubled, and the first 
Vietnamese-American candidate in history, Hubert Vo, was elected to the 
Texas Legislature--defeating the incumbent chair of the Appropriations 
Committee by 16 votes out of over 40,000 cast.
  These voting rights provisions work--they tell new citizens and 
citizens by birth who may not always feel they are afforded all of the 
opportunities they deserve that they are welcome to join our political 
process. They help new citizens and first time voters to overcome 
cultural differences which further contribute to disenfranchisement for 
limited English proficient citizens who are often unfamiliar with the 
American voting process and do not know about registration, referenda 
and voting machines. The charge of ``balkanization,'' as one witness 
put it is ``a loaded term of mythical proportions that has absolutely 
no basis in fact, and is used as a divisive measure.'' Based on the 
evidence we received, it is clear that the provisions of Sections 203 
and 4(f)(4) have led to increased participation and representation. 
These provisions, that caused significant problems in the House of 
Representatives, have enabled language minorities to overcome what are 
tantamount to literacy tests at the polling place so that they can 
access their fundamental right to vote. Section 203 and section 4(f)4 
of the Voting Rights Act must be reauthorized.

                          ____________________