[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.
____________________