[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 175 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7697-H7703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       RIGHT TO VOTE UNDER ATTACK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order 
tonight.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me, and I thank 
the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi, for giving me this time. I thank my 
colleagues for listening and for joining me in a few minutes. But I am 
also very sorry to be here in a certain respect. I'm sorry because I 
stand here tonight to talk about threats to the right of American 
citizens in States across this great country to go to the polls and 
cast a ballot in our elections.
  The single most fundamental aspect of our democracy--or any 
democracy--is the right to vote, and that right is under attack. Mr. 
Speaker, there is no right mentioned more often in the Constitution 
than the right to vote. In the past 207 years we have amended the 
Constitution 15 times. Seven of those amendments--almost half of the 
amendments--over the last two centuries are about protecting, in the 
words of the 14th Amendment, the right to vote.
  Minorities, women, adults over 18 years of age, poor citizens, and of 
course citizens of our Nation's Capital--at least if only for the 
Presidential election--all of these groups' right to vote has been 
enshrined in our Constitution. That's why it is so troubling to see 
dozens of States passing laws that will make it harder for citizens of 
the United States to vote. Whether by denying them the opportunity to 
vote after church on Sunday before the election day--perhaps because 
they cannot take time off work on election Day--or requiring them to 
spend time and money to procure a birth certificate and a photo ID, the 
only thing that these laws will do is to weaken our democracy. They are 
just plain wrong.
  Hopefully, I will be joined by some of my colleagues. But I do want 
to spend a little bit of time explaining to the American public and to 
my colleagues what this is all about. And I'm going to start off by the 
photo ID voter requirement which is being passed obviously out of the 
legislature in the State of Texas and to be enacted for the 2012 
election.
  What is it exactly? Well, people will say, you mean, you just have to 
have a photo ID? It is not just any photo ID; it has to be one that 
meets all the requirements of a particular State's laws. So you would 
say, well, how onerous could that possibly be? As I've said, it is not 
just any government-issued photo ID that will be accepted on election 
day. It has certain requirements. So, much to my surprise, I recently 
found out that basically my identification and my voting card that all 
Members of Congress use would not be sufficient, would not meet the 
requirements in the great State of Texas. But it should not come as any 
surprise, because if you are a veteran and you have a photo ID that 
allows you to go to the Audie Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital in San 
Antonio, Texas, in my district, that photo ID will not suffice under 
Texas law. If you're a student in one of our State-supported 
institutions that has your photo on there, has your name, all that 
information, that is not going to meet the requirements in the State of 
Texas.
  So you would ask, why would we pass these laws? What is the need? 
What is the requirement? Because we all know, whether you're in the 
State legislature or in this great House of Representatives at the 
Federal level, we don't pass unnecessary laws. So there must be a 
purpose behind these photo ID laws as well as other laws that are 
restricting the rights of individuals to exercise the right to vote.
  It is to stop fraud. The photo ID, its whole purpose is to stop 
people from impersonating an eligible voter.

                              {time}  1900

  Now, you would say, so that must be happening across this great 
country and that's why we need this law. People are impersonating other 
people. People that shouldn't be voting might be impersonating an 
eligible voter. So let's discuss that, the reason for the photo ID in 
these many States.
  I'm going to give you the example of the State of Kansas. The 
secretary of state pushed an ID law on the basis of a list of 221 
reported instances of voter fraud. This all was supposed to have 
occurred in Kansas since the year 1997. So from 1997, for about 13 
years, there were 221 reported instances of voter fraud. When the 
newspaper, the Wichita Eagle, looked into the local cases cited by the 
secretary of state, they found almost all of them were honest mistakes. 
None were attempted to be perpetrated by someone impersonating someone 
who they were not.
  A great example of that, and I have to read you the excerpt from the 
Wichita Eagle of October 29, 2010:

       Republican Kris Kobach, who has built his campaign for 
     secretary of state around the issue of voter fraud, raised 
     the specter of the dead voting in Kansas.
       Kobach said in a news conference Thursday that 1,966 
     deceased people were registered to vote in Kansas.
       ``Every one of those 1,966 identities is an opportunity for 
     voter fraud waiting to happen,'' he said. Furthermore, he 
     said, some were still casting ballots. He gave an example of 
     one person--Alfred K. Brewer, a Republican, registered in 
     Sedgwick County with a birth date listed of January 1, 1900. 
     Brewer, according to the comparison of Social Security 
     records and Kansas voter rolls, had died in 1996 yet had 
     voted in the August primary, Kobach said.
       Reached Thursday at his home where he was raking leaves, 
     Brewer, 78, was surprised some people thought he was dead.
       ``I don't think this is heaven, not when I'm raking 
     leaves,'' he said.

  Those are example after example. No one can give you a specific 
example of voter fraud based on someone impersonating someone who they 
should not be on Election Day.
  Now, between the years 2002 and 2007, a major Department of Justice, 
at the Federal level of course, had a probe into voter fraud. The 
result was failure to prosecute a single person for going to the polls 
and impersonating an eligible voter. Zero prosecutions. After 
tremendous amounts of manpower, time, energy, and money, nothing 
happened.
  Now, the Brandon Center for Justice, the cases for voter fraud, what 
is it? So

[[Page H7698]]

if you have a law that is addressing a particular offensive-type 
behavior that obviously hurts this great Republic of ours, such as 
voter fraud, surely we must have demonstrated, tangible, verifiable 
cases out there.
  The Washington Post, in an editorial, was looking at the number of 
alleged voter fraud. And these are not all predicated on voter ID. It 
could be some other type of fraud that's being perpetrated. But if you 
took all of the cases that have ever been alleged, this is the 
percentage of the total votes cast of those that might be suspect; 
because you've got to remember, there's going to be a price we're going 
to pay for this law, and that is it's going to disenfranchise the 
eligible voter in pursuit of the phantom illegal voter.
  In Missouri, if you took all of their complaints, it would amount to, 
when compared to the total voter turnout, 0.0003 percent. In New York, 
it would amount to 0.000009 percent. In New Jersey, it would be 0.0002 
percent.
  So where is the voter fraud? What are we trying to address in passing 
these laws by the different State legislatures?
  We had a recent occurrence, and this was not even a voter ID case, 
but this is where the secretary of state in Colorado, Mr. Gessler, was 
dropping voters from the voting list and not forwarding ballots for 
voting based on that particular voter not having voted in 2010. It 
didn't matter if they voted previously to that. If they did not vote in 
2010, then they were dropped from the rolls.
  And what was the reason for that? Well, there's potential voter 
fraud, potential of fraud. But they could not--that secretary of state, 
when they finally went to court, could not address, could not 
demonstrate, could not offer into evidence one case of voter fraud, not 
one. Based on his suspicions or conjecture.
  In 2006, in the great State of Texas, my home State, the Texas 
attorney general had a press release, and it was entitled, ``Let's 
Stamp Out Voter Fraud in Texas.'' Sounds good. Sounds like a good thing 
to do. He could not name one, not one single case of fraud that would 
have been stopped by a voter ID law in the State of Texas.
  I would yield at this time to my colleague, the great Representative 
from the great State of New Jersey, Rush Holt, for such time as he may 
consume.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Texas, and I thank him very much for 
setting aside some time for this important issue.
  You know, more than a century ago, the Supreme Court described the 
right to vote as the most fundamental right in our government because 
it is the preservative of all other rights. Indeed, that's true. And 
many years later, half a century ago, President Lyndon Johnson said 
that ``the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for 
breaking down injustice.''
  The vote is the lifeblood of self-government, and it's one of the 
most powerful ways that citizens can affect change. The integrity of 
the electoral process is fundamental to ensuring that the voice of the 
people is heard.
  I often say that a self-governing country such as ours works only if 
you believe it does. And we must make sure that every American knows 
that every vote counts, that every vote will be counted and that, you 
know, recognizing how complicated--it's not as simple as we would all 
like to believe--how complicated it is, that we, at the Federal level 
and at the State level, are doing everything we can to protect the 
franchise, to protect the franchise of each citizen to cast his vote. 
And it's not just that we want to protect this as a right; it's 
something we should desire for the sake of our country, that we get the 
diversity of opinion.
  Well, what's happening right now is in State after State there's 
legislation that's intended to exclude some opinions, exclude some 
individuals, exclude some groups. Of course, this is something this 
country has seen in the past and worked diligently--yes, through 
Federal law--to correct. It was known as a poll tax. There were also 
literacy tests, quite clearly intended to exclude African Americans 
from not just their right to vote, but from their obligation and their 
privilege of voting.
  What happens if laws are enacted to diminish the integrity and the 
accessibility of the ballot box for particular sectors of society? What 
happens if those disenfranchised voters typically vote for candidates 
representing one party?
  Well, I came of age in the throes of the civil rights movement, when 
our colleague Representative John Lewis, then a young man who had been 
tapped by Martin Luther King, Jr. to become a leader in the movement, 
was beaten. I often say he's the only Member of this Chamber who had 
his skull cracked, literally, to try to earn the right for everyone, 
every citizen to vote.
  In the aftermath of those bloody confrontations, Congress said there 
is a role for the Federal Government. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was 
passed, and it's made an enormous difference.
  But we can't sit back. We can't rest because right now, in State 
after State, there is effort to exclude some people. If you require 
people to jump through a lot of hoops, maybe not a lot of money, but 
spend some money, to me, that's a poll tax.

                              {time}  1910

  That is illegal, unconstitutional. We thought we had gotten away from 
it. We thought we had gotten away from so-called literacy tests where 
people had to jump through some truly unreasonable hurdles in order to 
vote, where prospective voters were quizzed to ask how many bubbles 
there are in a bar of soap. Hurdles that could not be crossed.
  Well, you know, it sounds reasonable when you say you don't want 
anyone who's not eligible to be showing up to vote. But where are those 
people? In State after State, these ID requirements are put in place to 
deal with a problem that doesn't exist, and millions of Americans are 
being excluded from voting in order to deal ostensibly with this 
problem of fraud at the polling place.
  Now, I don't doubt that in some ways, subtle or otherwise, there is 
some fraud. But I have not heard of a single immigrant coming across 
the border, walking through the desert of our southern States so that 
they could sneak in and cast a ballot some place.
  There are tough laws and severe penalties for people who vote 
fraudulently in the name or address that is intended to deceive. But 
very few people have been caught doing that. There are very few 
examples of prosecutions or apprehensions or, for that matter, even 
suspicions of this happening. And yet all of these laws that are being 
passed are ostensibly to deal with that problem. It's a problem that 
doesn't exist in nearly 5 million Americans by estimates from such 
people as the Brennan Center of the law school at NYU. Five million 
people might be excluded from this.
  So I thank my friend from Texas for engaging in this discussion 
tonight. Indeed, this is the right that preserves all other rights. 
What could be more important? It is cynical, it is disingenuous, it is 
un-American what people are doing in a very systematic way to exclude 
large groups of people from voting to solve a problem, an imaginary 
problem that's been trumped up. I believe it's been trumped up just so 
that they could exclude large numbers of people from voting.
  I thank my friend for raising this critically important question.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank my colleague from New Jersey, and I appreciate 
his words of encouragement here to address what is going on in this 
country as we speak. As a matter of fact, there are other laws that are 
awaiting legislative action in different States.
  I return still because I think people have a legitimate and good 
faith question about what are these laws supposed to address. And it's 
supposed to be about fraud. Mr. Speaker, let me address the claim of 
fraud once more.
  There is no voter fraud that is going to be stopped by denying a 96-
year-old woman in Tennessee her voter ID card because her last name 
doesn't match the name on her birth certificate, and she doesn't have a 
copy of her marriage certificate showing the change. There is no voter 
fraud that will be stopped by denying Floridians the right to vote 
after church on Sunday before election day.
  Is that because there is no fraud? Not really. Fraud isn't about 
voters going to polls when they're not eligible. It's about the two 
individuals in the State

[[Page H7699]]

of Maryland who were indicted earlier this year for organizing 
deceptive robocalls to keep voters from the polls. It's about the 
robocalls last month in the State of Ohio telling people that the 
election was on a Wednesday. This is about the group in Houston, Texas, 
that just hosted a man who said that registering the poor to vote is 
un-American and ``like handing out burglary tools to criminals.'' 
That's the fraud that's really perpetrated on Americans today.
  It's an old story of keeping people away from the polls when we 
should be encouraging them to vote. These new voter ID laws and law 
curtailing early voting or election day registration won't stop this 
kind of fraud, and the kind of fraud that would stop simply does not 
exist.
  The previous administration, as I noted earlier, nearly broke the 
civil rights division of the Department of Justice in its quest to find 
this kind of voter fraud that voter ID would stop. They couldn't find 
any because it does not happen. But these laws will have a powerful 
effect. They will deny millions of Americans the right to participate 
in this democracy.
  So we know what the law is. We know what it is intended to address, 
but doesn't really exist which is that kind of fraud. But what is the 
cost?
  Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber understand that when we pass 
legislation, we always look at the cost-benefit aspect of it. In other 
words, does the good really outweigh the bad? Is it worth the 
investment because there's going to be some consequence. In this case, 
it would not pass any kind of scrutiny if we really look at what it's 
going to cost Americans and how it's going to benefit Americans.
  Now, the NAACP in a brief from November 1 of this year cited the 
following information: 11 percent of eligible voters in this country, 
11 percent of eligible American citizen voters, 21 million strong, 
don't have updated State-issued photo IDs. So who's going to be 
impacted? Potentially 21 million eligible American citizen voters.
  But of that 21 million, 25 percent will be African Americans, 14 
percent are families or individuals that earn less than $35,000 a year, 
18 percent will be seniors over the age of 65. But even 20 percent will 
be individuals between the ages of 18 and 29.
  So I was asking a colleague, why do we do the analysis? What is the 
benefit and what is the cost? And many times we'll say, well, the cost 
is beneficial because it's worth that kind of investment if we get any 
kind of return.
  Let me point out the fallacy of these laws when we actually apply the 
test because when we talk about numbers, they are mere numbers in the 
abstract; but these are real American voters that will be denied their 
right to vote when they go to that polling place and are informed that 
they need a State-issued photo ID.
  There is no more fundamental right than that of voting, and a barrier 
that stops 1 percent of the people from voting is not acceptable merely 
because 99 percent of the people are still able to vote. Think of that 
proposition.

                              {time}  1920

  You simply are saying, well, if we just deny 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 
percent, or 5 percent, you still have 90-something percent of the 
population, of the registered and eligible voters, who are still going 
to be able to vote. But think in terms if that were your vote or if 
that were a family member's vote. Every vote is precious in this 
country, and there is no evidence to support that what you're 
addressing is a widespread problem that will disenfranchise many, many 
thousands--hundreds of thousands and even millions--of American voters. 
That's what we're facing here today. That's what the analysis shows.
  So, even if the lies of any scrutiny would show that this is ill-
conceived, it will not produce the result that you're seeking because 
the problem that you're trying to remedy does not exist. There is a 
price that will be paid, and the price will be paid by many 
disproportionately--by seniors and minorities and by those who may not 
be in the upper economic scales of this country.
  It is now my honor to yield such time as he may consume to my 
colleague from the great State of Florida, who can tell us many things 
about the Florida experience, Congressman Ted Deutch.
  Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank him for the 
opportunity to come and join with him tonight to address an issue of 
great concern to many Americans.
  We're here tonight because Republican State legislatures across the 
Nation are passing laws to make it harder for people to exercise their 
right to vote. The story they tell is one of rampant voter fraud that 
threatens the integrity of our elections and the very foundation of our 
democracy. It's a scary story. Imagine--just imagine--mobs of illegally 
registered voters entering our poll booths and hijacking our elections.
  However, there is something far scarier than the story that's being 
told--and that's the reality. It's the reality that our electoral 
system is not under siege by voter fraud but, instead, by an 
historically deliberate and ongoing effort to suppress the votes of 
America's minorities, seniors, students, and other traditionally 
Democratic voters.
  Now, while this is a nationwide trend, there is no question that the 
recent voting law passed in Florida takes the cake for radically 
infringing on voting rights. Ask any Floridian. Florida doesn't have a 
history of voter fraud. Florida has a history of voter suppression. 
This is a State that didn't ratify the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing 
women the right to vote, until 1969. This is the State where, in 2000, 
Secretary of State Katherine Harris eliminated 57,000 votes, mostly of 
minorities, simply because their names resembled those of persons 
convicted of crimes. They were wiped from the voting rolls. Now, our 
current Governor, Governor Scott, wasn't in Florida in 2000 when George 
Bush's legal team fought to stop counting the votes, when Katherine 
Harris certified election results without including the recount from my 
own Palm Beach County, and when the Supreme Court stopped a manual 
recount of votes. Florida is the State where thousands of seniors, whom 
I am so privileged to represent today, headed to the polls on election 
day in 2000 and never had their voices heard.
  That was hard work. It was hard work silencing the voices of the 
voters. HB 1355, the Florida election law, the voter suppression law, 
makes it child's play.
  Florida is the State where, in 2008, when Governor Charlie Crist 
extended early voting hours, Republican officials decried the fact that 
better access to voting would likely cost them the election. Now 
Florida is the State that is serving as a model for Republican 
legislatures across the country that are looking for ways to suppress 
turnout at the polls.
  HB 1355 eliminates the ability of voters to update their addresses or 
names at the polls due to marriage, divorce, or even military base 
relocation. Those voters now have to cast provisional ballots, which 
will likely go uncounted.
  HB 1355 also cuts early voting from 14 days to 8 because of the fact 
that the United States of America is one of the few democracies in the 
world where not declaring election day a national holiday is simply not 
restrictive enough.
  HB 1355 also allows absentee ballots to be arbitrarily tossed out of 
elections because of poor handwriting. The men and women I represent 
who may suffer from Parkinson's disease or arthritis or from the 
aftereffects of a stroke will have their votes thrown out because their 
quivering hands make their signatures look sloppy.
  Perhaps most disturbing is how HB 1355 cripples the ability of third-
party groups, like the Boy Scouts and the League of Women Voters and 
the NAACP, to run voter registration drives. In fact, any third party, 
including high school civics teachers, that offers to help students 
register to vote must turn in the registration forms within 48 hours or 
face fines.

  By passing HB 1355, Florida has provided States across the country 
with a blueprint for the voter suppression of minorities, seniors, 
students, and other Democratic voters.
  The voter fraud bogeyman may be a scary story, but it cannot compare 
to the very real and very blatant voter suppression efforts of 
Republican legislatures across America. Perhaps, because they know they 
can't win fairly, they need to suppress voters, not because of 
imaginary voter fraud, but because of real Americans--real Americans 
who have seen the true colors of a

[[Page H7700]]

Republican agenda that ends Medicare, that slashes education, that 
eliminates jobs, and that limits economic opportunity for working 
families. Real Americans have had enough, and they have the right to 
express themselves by exercising the most basic, the most fundamental 
right in our Nation--the right to vote.
  I thank you for organizing this opportunity tonight for us to make 
very clear to all who are watching that we won't let them take that 
right away.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank my colleague from Florida.
  At this time, I yield to a dear friend and colleague who is also from 
the great State of Florida, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for 
such time as she may consume.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It's really wonderful that the gentleman from Texas has organized 
this opportunity to have Members come to the floor and highlight our 
concerns and our commitment to protect the fundamental right and the 
very bedrock of our Democratic principles--the right to vote.
  I am pleased to stand with so many of my colleagues who all share my 
deep concern over the organized, insidious effort now underway in many 
States to disenfranchise millions of Americans and to silence their 
voices in our democracy. These efforts are purported to combat so-
called rampant voter fraud; yet no investigative effort to date has 
found voter fraud to be a major problem in our Nation, so no one should 
fall for this ruse. As my colleague from Florida just outlined, every 
American should understand and be concerned about the political 
disenfranchisement that is going on in many States, including in my 
home State of Florida. State legislatures are attempting to impose 
voting restrictions that are the modern day equivalent of poll taxes 
and literacy tests.
  Now, let me be clear. The foundation of our participatory democracy, 
of our democratic society, is rooted in the right to vote, in the right 
to choose our elected leaders, to have representation in government, to 
have input on the major policies of the day--the right to have our 
voices heard. That's why more than 250 years ago we threw off the 
shackles of the British Empire that denied American colonists 
representation in Parliament.
  The fight toward universal suffrage has been long and arduous, but it 
is a fight worth fighting. As May Wright Sewall, a leader of the 
women's suffrage movement in 19th century America, said:
  Universal suffrage is the only guarantee against despotism. Just as 
those who came before us have fought to gain and retain the right to 
vote, we, too, must stand vigilantly against those who seek to limit 
it. Each time I cast a ballot, I am reminded that it is a right not to 
be ignored. Less than a century ago, the women who came before us were 
denied the right to have their voices heard. Women during that time 
were confronted by a wealth of arguments against our right to suffrage. 
Women did not want the vote or women were already represented by their 
husbands or--one of my favorites--a woman's place is in the house.

                              {time}  1930

  Well, I would agree with that last statement, if we're talking about 
the House of Representatives, with the note that a woman's place is 
also in the Senate, the Governor's office, and in all seats of 
government. The women who fought for my right to vote were beaten, 
jailed, ostracized, and tormented. But still, they kept on and 
persevered because they knew that the women of our great Nation should 
not be deprived this fundamental right. So, no, we will not stand by 
and allow anyone's voting rights to be threatened, not on our watch. 
And many of our colleagues also know this fight too well.
  Despite the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments, giving citizens 
equal protection under the law and the right to vote regardless of 
their race, African Americans still faced more than a century of overt 
voter suppression. And while we made huge gains with the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965, a seminal moment in our Nation's history where we declared 
that truly no election law can deny or abridge voting rights because of 
race or color, we cannot afford to sit back and just declare the fight 
over.
  The struggle for universal suffrage is not over. We cannot allow 
State legislatures to drag our Nation backwards in what is nothing more 
than a political quest to protect their governing majority's interests.
  A little more than 10 years ago, Florida experienced election day 
turmoil that reminded us all how important it is to remain on guard 
against disenfranchisement. The many irregularities that occurred in my 
home State during the 2000 elections were a painful reminder of how 
rights can be denied.
  The Commission on Civil Rights report on the 2000 election in Florida 
found ``widespread voter disenfranchisement.'' As Commissioner 
Chairperson Mary Frances Berry stated at the time, ``It is not a 
question of a recount or even an accurate count, but more pointedly the 
issue is those whose exclusion from the right to vote amounted to a `no 
count.' ''
  In the last year, scores of States, including Florida, have passed 
laws restricting access to the polls. A recent Brennan Center report 
found that these changes in State voting laws will likely suppress the 
vote of more than 5 million voters nationwide. We need look no further 
than my own home State of Florida to see the threat against universal 
suffrage. The Florida law passed last spring restricts both voter 
registration and voting opportunities. It was championed by Governor 
Rick Scott and passed by the Republican-led legislature which has 
overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate.
  First, it restricts the ability of nonpartisan organizations or 
individuals from helping citizens register to vote. It fines people in 
groups up to $1,000 per voter if registration isn't turned in within 48 
hours. Just the other day, a teacher was sanctioned and is now being 
prosecuted because she didn't turn in her students' voter registrations 
within the new amended time frame that voter registration cards have to 
be turned in. And now she is being subjected to a significant fine per 
vote.
  As a result of this law, the League of Women Voters, a champion of 
nonpartisan voting rights for over seven decades, has suspended its 
voter registration operations in Florida because they can't take the 
risk to think that they would be bankrupted by this absolutely unfair, 
terrible law.
  Second, the Florida law rolls back early voting opportunities, 
including the Sunday before an election. It eliminates voting on the 
Sunday before an election. And I can tell you firsthand how important 
weekend early voting is for the thousands of seniors who live in my 
district and for millions all across the State.
  Also in 2008, African Americans and Hispanics, who together make up 
roughly one-quarter of Florida voters, accounted for more than half of 
all voters on the final Sunday of early voting. So do we think it's a 
coincidence that that group of voters, which voted overwhelmingly for 
Democratic candidates, now suddenly has their right to vote on that 
particular Sunday removed from them?
  As far as we have come in our society in broadening the scope of 
civil rights, we cannot afford to revert to a time when it was 
acceptable to limit the rights of a select few. We are not meant to 
have a government of some people, by some people, for some people. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in ensuring that we uphold President 
Abraham Lincoln's democratic ideal of government for all the people, 
elected by all the people.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for the opportunity to speak 
tonight.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank my colleague from Florida.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into colloquy with 
my colleagues from Florida and New Jersey. I guess I'm just going to 
pose the question: So what if just a few people are denied access to 
the ballot box? It's just a few. And after all, we're trying to see if 
there's any kind of provable, tangible fraud going on. Now, they 
haven't been able to prove any fraud based on identification, of 
course. But you pointed out in your remarks what happened in Florida in 
2000.

  How many votes in Florida actually determined who was going to be 
President of the United States of America?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. 537.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. And we've already touched on estimates of how millions

[[Page H7701]]

of eligible American citizen voters don't have a current State-issued 
ID. The number is in the millions. And in Florida, it was less than 600 
votes.
  I don't know the experience in New Jersey. But it would seem--and I 
went over this earlier, and I don't know if my colleagues were here--we 
passed laws in this Chamber, and we always try to demonstrate that 
we're trying to remedy a situation that is true in existence. And the 
manner in which we do it--we look at cost benefits. We can't prove 
fraud; but I can assure you, we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt 
that people will be denied access to the polls.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Texas.
  The history of America has been a history of expanding the franchise, 
the opportunity, the right to vote. And it's based on this principle 
that we often talk about in this Chamber but maybe don't pay enough 
attention to, which is the principle of equality under the law. We're 
not just saying that, Yes, everybody can vote--well, unless you are 
disabled, and you can't get into the polling place. Or everybody can 
vote except, well, if you're 75 years old, 85 years old, you are no 
longer driving, and you have let your driver's license expire, and, no, 
you haven't gotten down to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get 
another one. Or we'll let everybody vote--well, as long as you pay a 
tax or if your grandfather voted or if you can cross these hurdles.
  Our history has been a history of saying everybody is equal under the 
law. And we don't put artificial hurdles in place. The 15th Amendment 
said you can't deny African Americans the right to vote. In 1915, the 
Supreme Court said, The grandfather clauses are unconstitutional, which 
would outlaw exemptions from literacy requirements for voters whose 
grandfathers had been eligible to vote at the time of the Civil War.
  The 19th Amendment said women can vote. The 23rd Amendment said 
citizens of the District of Columbia could vote in Presidential 
elections. The 24th Amendment outlawed poll taxes. And in 1965, as I 
referred to earlier, in the aftermath of the march across the Edmund 
Pettus Bridge in Selma, the Voting Rights Act was passed, which 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or language-minority 
status. It prohibits the use of suppressive tactics in various poll 
tests.
  I could go on. The 18-year-old vote, the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, which requires equal access to voting places, the National Voter 
Registration Act, the ``Motor Voter Act,'' these are all based on the 
principle of equality under the law.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I would be happy to yield.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you.
  In answer to the gentleman from Texas' question, what's wrong with 
it, is this is supposed to be a country that affords everyone--
regardless of any category that you fall into--the opportunity to vote. 
The voter suppression laws that have been passed by Republican 
legislatures, championed by Republican Governors across the country, 
have systematically targeted specific groups of individuals based on 
their propensity to vote differently than the legislators who support 
those laws would like to see them vote.
  In other words, they are essentially blocking access to the polls for 
people who vote against their interests, against Republican interests. 
Blocking anyone's access to the polls is unacceptable to begin with, 
but insidiously trying to influence the outcome of an election through 
systematically changing the law to prevent people who are likely to go 
to the polls to vote for your opponent is the most heinous form of 
antidemocratic policy. I mean, it's the kind of policy that you would 
see in countries that we abhor, countries that we criticize.

                              {time}  1940

  For example, let's take the photo ID laws, and we have a photo ID law 
in Florida. There are photo ID laws across the country. You may have 
told the story about the 96-year-old woman from Tennessee. I'm sure 
you've already talked about that this evening. If you look at the 
statistics, which you may have gone over as well, 11 percent of 
Americans don't have a photo ID--11 percent. Twenty-five percent of 
African Americans don't have a photo ID, and I don't know the number, I 
was looking for the statistic for Hispanics.
  It is unacceptable to say that the only way you can identify somebody 
is by requiring them to carry a photo identification in order to vote. 
That's just ridiculous. Modern technology today allows for signature 
matches. All of our supervisors of elections have the signatures on 
file either in the old-fashioned way, written on a piece of paper, or 
scanned into a computer where they can match the signatures. That's how 
they have done it for many years in Florida until they imposed the 
photo ID law. All photo ID laws are an obstacle in the path of an 
individual who is more likely to go and vote for someone who is not a 
Republican. I'm sorry, elections should be won fair and square.
  Mr. HOLT. And continuing to answer the gentleman's question: Who 
cares? Why does it matter? My friend from Florida has talked about how 
millions can be disenfranchised, excluded by the photo ID laws. 
Additionally, State after State has made it more difficult to conduct 
voter registration drives. So people who are eligible, who should be 
voting, are prevented from or hindered in their registration. And 
hundreds of thousands, we expect, would be excluded because of 
registration drives. And there are other restrictions, too, that I will 
talk about in a moment.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just want to tell a story on that very 
specific restriction. We had the Republican secretary of state in 
Florida recently ask the attorney general to start assessing $50 fines 
for each of the 76 voter registration applications that were submitted 
by a high school teacher in Santa Rosa County. There was no indication 
of foul play. The applications were of individuals who appeared to be 
eligible Florida voters. They were high school kids who were 18 and 
were eligible to vote. But because Florida has changed the law under 
the Republican voter suppression law that requires registration to be 
turned in within 48 hours, and it used to be 10 days, this teacher got 
fined because she was trying to help her students register to vote and 
didn't get them in under the new time limit.
  Mr. HOLT. So I ask the gentlelady, how many other patriotic Americans 
are going to be deterred from asking their friends, their neighbors--in 
this case, maybe students--from registering for fear that they'll be 
prosecuted if they don't dot the I's just right?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Exactly. The League of Women Voters in my 
State, Mr. Holt, has registered voters in Florida for seven decades and 
suspended their voter registration activity after this law passed 
because they can't take the risk. The organization would become 
bankrupt. Can you imagine, the League of Women Voters no longer 
registers people to vote in the State of Florida.
  Mr. HOLT. And then in other States--who cares, my friend asks--in 
other States, they're making it harder to cast absentee ballots. So 
that's going to exclude people.
  You know, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see behind 
this a purpose of exclusion. This is not, Oh, we're just trying to 
clean up the procedures here to make sure that it's all neat and tidy. 
No, this is deliberate exclusion.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, the curious thing, and I know the gentlelady from 
Florida has already pointed it out, there is no doubt that certain 
segments of voters are being targeted. This isn't an even application 
whose consequences will be felt across equally all sectors or segments 
of the voting population. We know what is really going on, and it is an 
asserted, directed effort. And some people may find it exceedingly hard 
to believe that that's what these laws will actually accomplish rather 
than the lofty goal of somehow eliminating, addressing voter fraud when 
we've already stated that you don't have any demonstrable evidence that 
the fraud is occurring.
  Now, I do want to say in Texas, we just had this new photo ID law 
passed, and so I went to the Secretary of State's Office and I went to 
the Department of Public Safety which is charged and tasked with the 
duty of providing this election ID, photo ID. Now, this is the amazing 
thing. The Department of Public Safety in the State of Texas has not 
been appropriated one extra dollar

[[Page H7702]]

for this added burden. They are not going to have extended hours. They 
are going to have the regular hours. They're not going to have any 
mobile units of any type. They will continue using their existing 
facilities which are already taxed to the limit by individuals who are 
going in there just for regular business.

  Now, this is the State of Texas. You may not believe this, but I 
think Florida is a pretty big State. New Jersey, not as big. But you 
can have a distance of 100 miles from some of our towns to the nearest 
DPS office. Now, why would that be important? You don't have a Texas 
driver's license, so that tells you you're going to have to get someone 
to drive you to the DPS station. And then you're going to be in the 
same line. Maybe they'll queue it a little differently, whatever it is, 
but I'll tell you now, the Texas experience is no different than most 
other States where you stand in line for inordinate amounts of time. If 
we're talking about the elderly, if we're talking about those who have 
some sort of a physical handicap, they can still go out and vote 
because they're so proud of the right to vote that they've been 
exercising for 60-plus years.
  I would yield to the gentlelady from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you.
  Because in some States it's equally as bad. It is certainly bad 
enough in Texas they're not putting more funding in to make sure those 
people have more access to get those photo IDs. But in some States, 
because of the budget cuts, they're systematically, in communities that 
have large African American populations and large Hispanic populations, 
shutting down driver's license offices, so it's even harder for those 
communities to go and get a photo ID.
  This has been insidious. The disturbing thing about this is that it's 
clear that these Republican legislatures, led by Republican Governors, 
just don't think that they can win an election on the merits. And so 
they need an insurance policy because, in the event voters actually 
decide that no, Republicans aren't interested in creating jobs, no, 
they're not interested in getting the economy turned around, and, gee, 
maybe I'd like to actually go to the polls and vote for the candidate 
of my choice, they are using the insurance policy of voter suppression 
laws to make sure that people who are likely to go to the polls and 
vote for someone other than them can't do it. It's un-American. It's 
unacceptable.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I believe we still have at least 5 minutes, and I 
surely wanted to reference an article that was written by our colleague 
from Georgia, John Lewis. Mr. Holt, I think, has already referred to 
Mr. Lewis' illustrative career in the civil rights movement and such, 
but I would like to read the last couple of paragraphs because coming 
from John Lewis it is special because he's lived the worst of times and 
he knows that it's been a progression, a slow one, and we're not there 
yet. To somehow return to those old days under the guise of some sort 
of voter fraud, which again has not been demonstrated, we know the cost 
is going to far exceed the benefits.
  This is what he said:

       These restrictions purportedly apply to all citizens 
     equally. In reality, we know that they will 
     disproportionately burden African Americans and other racial 
     minorities, yet again. They are poll taxes by another name.
       The King Memorial reminds us that out of a mountain of 
     despair we may hew a stone of hope. Forty-eight years after 
     the March on Washington, we must continue our work with hope 
     that all citizens will have an unfettered right to vote. 
     Second-class citizenship is not citizenship at all.
       We've come some distance and have made great progress, but 
     Dr. King's dream has not been realized in full. New 
     restraints on the right to vote do not merely slow us down. 
     They turn us backward, setting us in the wrong direction on a 
     course where we have already traveled too far and sacrificed 
     too much.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Ohio). The gentleman has 
approximately 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I'd like to yield time to each of my colleagues as we 
close out the Special Order.
  I would first recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
  So, as efforts are made to put hurdles in the way to require proof 
that is difficult or expensive to get, that is, if offices are closed, 
and open periods for absentee ballots are shrunk, and early voting is 
discontinued as it has been in some States--in fact, Florida, Georgia, 
Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia have succeeded enacting bills that 
reduce early voting--all of this serves only to reduce the dignity of 
Americans by saying the principle of equality applies except for some 
people, some people as I said, who might have physical disabilities or 
might be elderly or might be low income.
  But, more than that, it deprives us of a working democracy. The 
reason, the history of America has been a history of expanding the 
franchise so that we could have a more stable, productive democracy. We 
want everyone to vote. It makes this a richer country in every way.
  I thank the gentleman for setting aside this time. I can't think of a 
more important topic to be debated in this great Chamber.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank my colleague for his participation and his 
words.
  I would yield to my colleague from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank 
you for the opportunity for calling us together on this very important 
topic. I just want to close out my time very briefly by saying to the 
gentlemen from Texas and New Jersey that we are not going to lay down 
and just allow these laws to stand, that there are civil rights 
organizations, as we speak, pursuing these laws because we know that 
they are violations of people's, of individuals' constitutional rights.
  We know they are violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We know 
that the Justice Department is reviewing many of these laws because 
they have to be precleared under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So 
people should know that while we are here expressing grave concern, we 
are certainly not only using our voices to fight these insidious laws; 
we are standing up for the franchise, standing up for the right to vote 
and making sure that, as Democrats, we go to bat to make sure every 
eligible voter has an opportunity to cast their vote for the person 
that is the individual that they want to represent them in this 
representative democracy. We are standing against individuals who try 
to fix the outcome of elections by blocking people's access to the 
polls.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank my colleague from Florida, I thank the Speaker, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACA. I want to recognize my colleagues, Mr. Hoyer and Mr. 
Gonzalez,  for organizing this special order hour.
  The United States is the land of opportunity, and it functions on the 
premise that every American citizen has natural given rights outlined 
in our Constitution.
  Maybe the most important of these rights is the right to make our 
voices heard in the voting booth.
  Unfortunately, some states in our great nation have passed laws that 
actively work to suppress this sacred right.
  The Republican leadership in Wisconsin, Kansas, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, and Texas have all passed measures that drastically change 
Voter-ID requirements.
  In Wisconsin--elderly and disabled voters will no longer be able to 
use their Social Security identification to vote.
  In Texas--student IDs will no longer be recognized at the polls.
  These types of measures have the potential to impact 5 million voters 
in the United States.
  Those impacted are most likely to be the youth, minority, elderly, 
disabled, and low-income voters.
  Some claim that the reason for such measures is to combat ``voter 
fraud.'' But there is absolutely no evidence to prove this theory true.
  Since October 2002--86 individuals have been convicted of federal 
crimes relating to election fraud, while over 196 million ballots have 
been cast in federal general elections.
  Voter fraud is exceedingly rare, and when it does happen, it's 
doesn't occur at the polls through impersonation.
  It happens through misinformation about polling locations, voter roll 
purges, or even ballot stuffing and electronic voting system 
manipulation.
  There are 21 million Americans who do not have government-issued 
photo identification. They do not deserve to have their rights stripped 
away from them.

[[Page H7703]]

  This number includes 18 percent of the elderly, 16 percent of 
Latinos, 25 percent of African American, 20 percent of young people, 
and 15 percent of people who earn under $35,000 yearly.
  These misguided laws clearly create a disproportionate burden on 
racial minorities, seniors, young people, and low-wage workers.
  The fees to obtain an ID can range from $20 to $100, and the costs of 
getting the required paperwork such as birth certificates, passports or 
naturalization papers can be costlier.
  Many foreign-born Americans--who are legally allowed to vote--lack 
papers such as birth certificates required to obtain a driver's license 
or state ID.
  These laws go against the fundamental foundations of our democracy.
  They are unconstitutional and violate a citizen's right to voice 
their opinion through the form of a ballot.
  Every citizen should easily be able to have their say in an election.
  These laws are voter suppression--plan and simple--and we will no 
longer stand for it.
  Many compare these laws to the poll taxes adopted by Southern states 
to discourage African-Americans from voting after the Civil War.
  Have we really reverted back to this mentality?
  We've made so much progress as a nation of equality for all, but 
these laws are making us take a step backwards.
  Simply put, this is a threat to our democratic process.
  Our right to vote should not be determined by any political agenda.
  Many countries around the world do not have the universal right to 
vote as we have here.
  Americans are able to speak freely, and write about their issues or 
concerns without fear of being reprimanded.
  Politically, they voice their opinions through the vote, and 
stripping or limiting that natural born right is in complete violation 
of how I can be here today.
  It is an infringement on our democracy.
  I know that if we come together--we can and will do better than this.
  Again--I thank Whip Hoyer and CHC Chairman Gonzalez for organizing 
this special order.

                          ____________________