[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 98 (Monday, July 24, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1500-E1501]
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. JEB HENSARLING

                                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:

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, on July 13, I reluctantly voted against 
H.R. 9, a bill that significantly altered the Voting Rights Act (VRA). 
Contrary to popular opinion, H.R. 9 did not represent a time-critical 
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The VRA, which prohibits 
voter discrimination, is permanent Federal law. It never needs 
reauthorization. However, certain provisions of the Act (Sections 6-9 
and Section 203), which were meant to be temporary and periodically 
reviewed by Congress, are due to expire a year from now--not today, 
this month or even this year.
  When enacted in 1965, the Voting Rights Act played a critical role in 
granting equal rights to all Americans to cast their ballots. At that 
point in our Nation's history, some jurisdictions used extraordinary 
voter suppression devices like poll taxes and literacy tests that were 
designed to discriminate against minority voters and indeed had that 
effect. Congress rightly responded in kind with extraordinary remedies 
that were deemed emergency provisions. The emergency or temporary 
provisions of the VRA include Section 5, which requires certain covered 
jurisdictions to pre-clear any change in their election laws or 
procedures with the Department of Justice. This means relocating a 
ballot booth in one neighborhood can require Federal approval. It also 
includes Section 203, added in 1975, mandating that ballots in certain 
jurisdictions be provided in languages other than English.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 9 is significantly flawed. For example, H.R. 9 
does not simply re-authorize Section 5 of VRA but makes significant 
changes to the section. Specifically, it requires that for Section 5 
pre-clearance that minorities as a group, not as individuals, be 
allowed to elect their preferred candidate of choice. Legal scholars 
disagree on the meaning of this phrase but many interpret it to mean 
that states will now be forced in decennial Congressional redistricting 
to maximize the number of districts where a certain political party 
wins. For example, in the recent Texas redistricting case it was found 
that if most members of a minority group vote Democratic, they are 
entitled to a district that elects a Democrat. If a minority candidate 
wins the district, that is not sufficient. It must be a Democrat 
minority candidate. That is not a voting right; it is a voting wrong. 
No less a legal authority than former Solicitor General Ted Olson has 
stated the following:
  ``For forty-one years, the Voting Rights Act has focused on 
protecting voters' rights to cast a ballot by forbidding States from 
adopting laws that `abridge[] the right to vote on account of race or 
color.' The new version of the Voting Rights Act, however, risks 
shifting the Act's focus to protect politicians' interests in holding 
office, by entrenching preferred candidates of choice. I believe that 
most Americans would agree that the Voting Rights Act should be used to 
protect voters' access to the ballot box, not to protect incumbents' 
reelection chances.''
  Thus, Section 5 should be reauthorized as is without this new 
language.
  Another flaw of H.R. 9 is that it preserves 40-year-old criteria 
(based on the 1964, '68, and '72 presidential elections) to determine 
which states and counties are subject to provisions of the VRA. But 
minority-voting patterns are now dramatically different than they were 
40 years ago. For example, today in Georgia, blacks are more likely 
than whites to register to vote and to exercise their right to vote. 
The VRA should be used to protect voting rights everywhere, not just 
the South and a handful of other counties. Discrimination today can 
happen just as easily in Michigan or New Jersey as it can in Texas or 
Georgia. Unless this

[[Page E1501]]

section is changed, many of our grandchildren will continue to be 
punished for the sins of our grandfathers. That should not happen in 
America.
  Using election data from 1964--when 60% of Americans today were not 
even alive--to determine discrimination patterns today is deeply 
troubling and raises questions as to the fairness and constitutionality 
of the legislation. The criteria should be updated to the relevant last 
three presidential elections to assure equal protection under the law.
  Finally, I continue to believe that section 203 is bad public policy. 
In America, English is the language of opportunity. This common 
language binds us together as a people and strengthens us as a Nation. 
We must continue to emphasize the importance of learning English to 
those integrating into American society and culture. This is important 
to them and critical to the Nation as a whole. Those entering the 
country illegally clearly are not allowed to vote and naturalized 
citizens must demonstrate English proficiency before becoming 
Americans. Thus, contrary to popular notions, there are relatively few 
Americans not sufficiently proficient with English to cast a ballot. 
Those that are not already have their voting rights protected by laws 
permitting them to bring a translator into the voting booth with them. 
If a city or state wishes to print multiple ballots in numerous 
languages the Federal Government should not prevent them from doing so. 
On the other hand, the federal government should not mandate that they 
do it either. Simply put, taxpayers should not be compelled by federal 
law to pay for printing ballots in languages other than English.
  The amendments that I supported to shorten the bill's extension to 10 
years, apply the VRA fairly and nationwide, remove jurisdictions from 
coverage when they have shown a consistent respect for the voting 
rights of minority citizens, and end a requirement forcing taxpayers to 
pay for ballots in languages other than English--would have greatly 
improved this bill. I hope that appropriate changes are made to 
strengthen this bill, so that I am able to vote for final passage when 
it comes back to the House.
  There is no doubt that the debate over the Voting Rights Act is an 
emotional one. For many Americans it has become and icon and rightfully 
so. The VRA has been a critical weapon in the struggle for civil rights 
and equal opportunity and should remain so. But the emergency 
provisions were written in a different time to address a different set 
of challenges. There is danger in allowing symbolism to overcome 
reality and principle.
  This is not a vote I took lightly. I know too often in America that 
when the accusation is racism, one may wrongly be considered guilty 
until proven innocent. I regret the phenomena but will not let it 
dictate my conscience. Everyday we should not only work to root out 
racial discrimination but should work to reduce race consciousness as 
well. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts opined in the case LVLAC 
v. Perry: ``It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.'' I 
agree. Instead we should all work together to achieve Martin Luther 
King, Jr's goal of achieving a society that judges our children ``not 
by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.''

                          ____________________