[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 63 (Monday, May 7, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2304-H2310]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS: VOTER PROTECTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
General Leave
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks on the subject of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This evening, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
be anchoring the Congressional Black Caucus hour on voter protection.
At the same time that I have the privilege of hosting this very
important discussion, let me make note of the fact that our very
distinguished Member, Congressman Charlie Rangel, is being toasted and
recognized by our Members. I know that many of them will be
commemorating Congressman Rangel, who is a dear friend of mine. He
served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and as a Korean War vet, and
understands, when soldiers go to battle, they go to battle so that
others might have the opportunity for freedom. Certainly embodied in
freedom has to be the idea of being able to vote.
So this evening, as I discuss these issues, I am delighted to
acknowledge him as well as to acknowledge that this is really a
bipartisan concern--and it should be a bipartisan concern, because, in
essence, we should not be at this moment speaking about who you vote
for as much as we are speaking about allowing you to vote for the
person of your choice and to be able to cast your vote unfettered.
Mr. Speaker, that is what my discussion will be about tonight. As I
do so, allow me just for a moment to be able to share, if you will, a
point that I hope that we all can adhere to.
This is going to be a tough election season. There are many actors,
if you will, who will be involved in this process. This is a
Presidential year, so it's going to get particularly feisty. But I do
believe that there is a certain collegiality and collaboration as it
circles around voting and the idea of voting and of voting with equal
opportunity.
{time} 1920
Even in our words, we need to try and make sure that we're lifting
the voters up.
I heard a comment from someone introducing the intended Republican
nominee--though it was tongue in cheek with a little humor--who
indicated in his remarks very loudly, ``Osama is dead.'' And in the
midst of it, he indicated, ``I mean Osama bin Laden.'' I assume he was
trying to make a play on words, but I really hope that we can stay
above the line of decency as we recognize that we live in difficult
times.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, we just heard
publicly about a particular effort to attack our aviation assets, which
was just announced today as breaking news, and we realize that we live
in challenging times. For that reason, I think this discussion on voter
protection is extremely important.
So let me just say to my friends that until now, historically, the
voting franchise has only been expanded. This is most evident in the
constitutional amendments that have been passed to protect and expand
the right to vote. And since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, it really has been a bipartisan congressional prerogative to
ensure access to the ballot.
President Lyndon Baines Johnson, one of the Presidents who has been
touted as having the greatest legislative record, had to cobble
together Republicans and Democrats from the Deep South--then called the
Dixiecrats--and moderate Republicans from the North and Midwest. He
successfully passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and successfully
passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It was a bipartisan effort.
And I might say that many Members who have reflected to have had a
chance to encounter--some are still in this House. I remember, most
famously, Jack Brooks, after it was all said and done, felt that they
had done the right thing.
Today I was at a middle school, and I indicated to them that I would
be on the floor of the House discussing voter protection. I was
inspired by those young people, middle schoolers, who were attentive to
learn what their government did. As I left, telling them not how to
vote but that they must vote, there was a great excitement in the room.
I'm on this floor today for them and all middle schoolers, high
schoolers, college students, senior citizens, new immigrants who have
taken the oath with great pride, long-time voters, new voters. Those
are voters who have the right to vote. That's what we're talking about.
Unfortunately, a series of laws do not go after those who did not
have the right to vote, but these series of voter ID laws and new rules
and regulations to stop people from voting goes after documented, legal
voters with legal voting certificates who have done nothing wrong.
Shame on those who would do so.
I just read, recently, that the lead person opposing the voter ID law
in Pennsylvania, if I am correct--it's my recollection now--would be 93
years old. That's who we're hurting: senior citizens, people who have
toiled and worked and paid their taxes, paid into Medicare. And now,
because of when they were born, such as my mother Ivalita Jackson, they
do not have a birth certificate. We tried, we looked, and we still have
an inquiry in. God bless her.
My mother has since passed while we were in the midst of looking for
the certificate for a number of reasons, but she had her voting card
and she was eligible to vote. But under new voting ID laws, she would
not be eligible to vote. And here is a woman who raised her children,
paid her taxes, self-educated herself, achieved a status of a
vocational nurse in times when education was not gifted to her.
A recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice of NYU Law School
concluded that the newly enacted State laws that would affect more than
5 million eligible voters will disproportionately disenfranchise young,
low-income, elderly, and minority voters. In 2006, the Brennan Center
completed a nationwide survey of voting-age citizens and found that
African American voters are more than three times as likely as
Caucasians to lack a government-issued ID.
The real nonsense of it all is that voter IDs are to avoid voter
impersonation, and voter impersonation is a finite part of any kind of
voter fraud. In fact, under the Bush administration, there was less
than 20, if you will, that were prosecuted. We're talking about a
country of 300 million. And this is by recollection: I think there were
some 180 cases that were brought forward, and they only wound up
prosecuting a finite number.
The heavy burden on minority voters seems patently unfair, and it
seems to be a direct result of the great enthusiasm of all voters in
2008. I want to see that all the time. Sometimes we win and sometimes
we lose.
Isn't it interesting, when the wave of Tea Party voters had such an
impact in 2010 and many of them were new voters, I didn't fare well in
that, meaning my party's particular position, but it was the American
way. All of the sudden, even with these new voters and the will of the
people being adhered to, all of the sudden these new laws come out of
the very people who are new to the voting process--many of them--and
were excited about voting in 2010. Now comes a sledgehammer to prevent
others from voting.
In Texas, thanks to new voter ID, students may not use their school-
[[Page H2305]]
issued IDs to vote, which is part of an effort to restrict student IDs
as a valid form of identification to vote. This is the same State that
will allow Texans with a concealed weapons permit to use their permits
to vote, but a student who is trying to get an education, who has a
State-issued ID card is not afforded the same privilege to use their
student IDs.
Mind you, the Prairie View A&M case established a Supreme Court case
that students could vote where they go to school. I remember that
because we marched some 7-plus miles down an interstate to Prairie View
A&M, thousands of us, to determine that students have a right at
Prairie View A&M, that set a historical Supreme Court decision.
By the way, this was not, in essence, a liberal court. This decision
was made under the Bush administration that determined that students
can vote, and now the State of Texas is suggesting that they can't use
their ID. Shame on them. Frankly, this seems out of whack. A student
should be able to use their ID to vote.
Eleven percent of U.S. citizens, or more than 21 million Americans,
do not have government-issued photo identification. Also, as many as 25
percent of all African American citizens of voting age do not have
government-issued IDs.
Mandating voter IDs has a disproportionate and unfair impact on low-
income individuals and racial and ethnic minorities. This also has a
heavy burden on Hispanic voters in Texas. We found out that many
Hispanic voters live in counties where there is no Department of Public
Safety office for them to even go to.
Mr. Speaker, do we get an airplane, a helicopter? What do we tell
individuals who have toiled, who have worked and are second- and third-
generation Texans that just because of their aging status, maybe
because of health reasons, they cannot get a voter ID? Senior citizens,
voters with disabilities, and many other individuals do not have
government-issued ID or the money to even acquire one.
Yes, under Texas law they can vote by mail, but I tell you, getting
information to people is very hard. If you're used to going and voting
on a Sunday, if you're used to being taken when your family members
have the time to take you--which is weekend voting--and you're used to
taking your voter certificate and now the new law says no, what an
outrage.
{time} 1930
But I have relief. As it relates to Texas, I have just spoken to the
Justice Department and have been reissued a letter that indicates that
the Texas voter ID law is invalid as it relates to the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, a cause for celebration. Our primary will be May 29. That
law will be invalid for both the primary and the runoff.
I've asked the State of Texas to not hide that information and to
come out with a clear enunciation--not a negative announcement--that
says that the Justice Department has stopped the Texas voter ID law.
That doesn't help anybody understand anything. Your duty is to be
impartial as a State election officer, and you are to come out and say
that the current law stands--not the voter ID law that is invalid under
the Voting Rights Act--until a further court determination can be made,
which is not until the July 2012 court hearing.
It is important for us to work together, as State officials, to let
everyone know your voting certificate is an appropriate document to
allow you to vote. That is what government is supposed to do, give fair
and impartial information no matter where it falls. And I look forward
to working with our State government to ensure that impartial
information is now promoted to all people, everyone.
Your voting certificate is a legitimate document. And if you do not
have a State-issued voter ID, you can vote in your primary, whether it
is Republican, Democratic, or any other primary that is viable in the
State of Texas. Why is that so difficult to do? More than 21 million
Americans do not have government-issued photo identification, which
includes, again, 25 percent of African American voting age citizens, or
more than 5.5 million people; 15 percent of those earning less than
$35,000 a year; 18 percent of those age 65 and above--and more than 6
million voters; 20 percent of young voters ages 18 to 29, and it is
much higher in the Hispanic community.
The photo ID proposals are not new, with calls for strict voter
identification laws emerging out of the 2000 Presidential election,
when conservative watchdog groups contended that laws intending to
facilitate voting, such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993,
known as ``Motor Voter,'' had opened the doors to illegal voting.
That's impossible, Mr. Speaker. It didn't look like the folks who
thought that they were losing suffered too much in the 2000
Presidential election. The candidate of their choice was elected and
ascended to the presidency. I can't imagine why they would feel that
they had been violated by the 1993 Motor Voter law, which means that
you could just register to vote at your various sites around the
community, including the motor vehicle department.
The Justice Department, under Attorney General Ashcroft, pledged that
cracking down on so-called voter fraud would be a top priority of the
Bush administration Justice Department, though ultimately, the
Department's own extensive analysis found little evidence of voting
improprieties. Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002,
establishing uniform minimum voter identification requirements,
prompting calls that States should go further.
Mr. Speaker, this is for everybody. I can't stop or investigate who
is coming to the polls and suggest that if you are this party or that
party, stay away. Why wouldn't we want to help everyone?
Since 2001, more than 700 voter identification bills have been
introduced in 46 States, according to the National Conference of State
Legislatures. A dozen States have passed new voter ID laws since 2003,
but only eight States require a photo ID of voters, and only two have
laws as strict as those being proposed this year. That was before. Now
we have, in essence, a new day. We have some tough laws that are
hurting voters. We're talking about voter protection, but we have to
overcome voter suppression.
If you look at this map, you will see that we are being overwhelmed
by voter photo ID requirements. I would say almost two-thirds of the
States have inappropriately and incorrectly believed that they are
going to make voting far more secure.
Let me tell you what an ID does: It stops you from impersonating
another person. That has been the lowest level of voter fraud because
you are silly to impersonate because you are going into a place that
might subject you to an arrest. In the State of Texas, precinct judges
have the status of a district judge on election day.
This map will show you how bad it is. Look at the red. It requires
voter ID. Big Texas: that's why I need the State to announce that the
voter ID law is invalid for the May 29 primary, because it looks as if
we have a requirement that does not exist for this primary. Someone
hear me. We are obligated to tell the 21 million-plus Texans that they
have the right to vote with a voting certificate if they are registered
to vote for the May 29 primary. That red is getting pretty strong.
Blue, photo ID requested. The red is require photo ID only; nothing
else. How absurd.
In essence, we're taking a match and burning the voting certificates
that people worked so hard to get, that allow people to vote--that you
tell people to register again. It also disallows organizations like the
League of Women Voters and puts a very heavy hand on what happens when
you register people to vote and how you have to get those registrations
in. The big ``stop'' sign. That's why it's red. It's the ``stop people
from voting'' law.
Then look at the photo ID requested, blue States. Then look at the
photo voter ID legislation proposed. It covers 90 percent of America.
How absurd. And I would be open to finding a way to ensure that that
diminished, limited amount of fraud is taken care of. But this is what
it does: It puts up a red stop sign. It stops people from voting. It
frightens people from voting. It keeps people from voting.
And then, of course, this is another big, fat, red map which shows
the States where voting changes were pursued and the types of changes
enacted.
[[Page H2306]]
I'll show it in a moment. It includes legislation introduced. Big red
photo ID requirements--passed. Proof of citizenship--passed.
Restrictions on voter registration--passed. Restrictions on early
absentee voting--passed. Executive action, making it harder to restore
voting rights. You can see the country is predominantly red with a big
``stop'' sign, stopping people from voting.
I beg of you, why would we, who have the privilege of having a
document that gave citizens due process, gave us the freedoms of
speech, petition, assembly, all having to do with petitioning your
government, and then we have a movement that literally stops us in our
tracks. Then we have Citizens United that dumps money into elections
and literally skews who gets to be selected by the people.
I want everyone to see how much we need to overcome voter suppression
by, in essence, protecting everyone's right to vote. I want to be very
clear on this: Everyone's right to vote.
A dozen States have passed, as I have said, new voter ID laws since
2003. But voter ID proposals have a forceful momentum this year not
seen in years passed--this year, meaning 2012, 2011, and going back to
2010. This is part of a broader legislative movement to limit access to
the political process for disenfranchised groups at a level not seen
since post-Reconstruction Era laws implementing poll taxes and literacy
tests.
Now we have to know that there are those of us who come from States
where the literacy tests and poll tax have not gone away even for 60
years, meaning that we have not even had that relief for 60 years.
{time} 1940
There were lawsuits in the 1940s that ultimately generated an
opportunity for constituents not to pay a poll tax. I remember the late
Beulah Shepard, who came to Texas. If there ever was a person that
talked about voting, it was sister Beulah Shepard out of Acres Homes.
She always used to recite a poem about just one vote, and she gave a
whole list of what one vote, one person could do. She proudly talked
about the fact that she paid a poll tax to vote. And she paid a poll
tax, I think she said, for her husband and others who needed to vote.
That wasn't too long in America's history and future, Mr. Speaker.
What a shameful turn of events that now the late Beulah Shepard is no
longer here, and how she'd be crying, turning over in her resting
place, to realize that all the toiling that she did to register people
to vote, to empower those who had been disenfranchised, now could not
vote.
Susan B. Anthony and the Suffragettes, Sojourner Truth, who suffered
because women could not vote. They were not landowners. And they tried
and worked and toiled and were ridiculed, and finally women could vote.
And to find now some elderly woman who does not have her voter photo
ID--and I say this. Let the listening public hear. You cannot get a
voter ID if you don't bring something like a birth certificate. And
this is where our seniors either can't get there or they're too elderly
to have access to their birth certificate. Maybe they were, in essence,
brought into this world by a volunteer or midwife or family members.
There's no birth certificate. Maybe it's in the deep country in the
dark of night, where mom and baby did not get recognition until days or
weeks afterward. Or, living as long as they lived, the birth
certificate has been lost. Mr. Speaker, I've heard of veterans whose
documents were burned up in a fire. They were still veterans. They
still served their country. We see them every day.
And so here we have a situation where you're disenfranchising groups
at a level not seen, as I said, since post-Reconstruction era laws
implementing a poll tax and a literacy test. Just over the first 2
months of 2011, photo ID proposals have been introduced in 32 States
and passed out of one legislative chamber in 12 States. Lawmakers
across the Nation have pinpointed photo ID as a top legislative
priority. The Governor of Texas designated photo ID as a legislative
emergency in order to allow it to be procedurally fast-tracked to the
legislature. Photo ID proposals were pre-filed before legislative
sessions began in half a dozen States. And secretaries of State in a
number of States have listed photo ID as a top priority.
Let me thank Chairman Emanuel Cleaver for leading out not only
members of the Congressional Black Caucus but collaborating with other
organizations, and let me thank my colleagues who have worked so hard
on this issue. Let me thank Congresswoman Donna Christensen, who is
detained at a matter that she had to attend, who's been anchoring these
hour-long discussions with the American public.
But we better beware, because what you do to others comes back to
you. The idea of limiting a person's access to voting and being able to
vote on the cause of how you think they will vote and how you don't
want those people to vote comes back to Americans who want to vote in
whichever way they do. Stop me from voting, you get stopped from
voting.
The idea of a photo ID is not a respecter of race. And if you're
elderly and can't get to the Department of Public Safety office or in
another State you can't get somewhere, if you're inhibited or
prohibited, it is an impact on you no matter what background you come
from.
Thank God for the Congressional Black Caucus that is a respecter of
the rights of all people. We are fighting for our children. We're
fighting for young people, the elderly, the disabled. And no matter who
you are, if you're blocked to vote because of the voter ID, this is
voter suppression--and we want to have voter protection.
The Governor of Texas designated photo ID as a legislative emergency
in order to allow it to be procedurally fast-tracked through the
legislature. Photo ID proposals were pre-filed before legislative
sessions began in half a dozen States. I don't know why that happened.
We're bogged down with the redistricting case.
The secretaries of State in a number of States have listed photo ID
as a top priority. Mr. Speaker, it does nothing. The Bush
administration showed they couldn't find any fraud worth prosecuting
for people who were impersonating a voter. Photo ID proposals have
garnered significant momentum in a very mistaken matter--that it's
going to do something. It is not.
Let us point out voter fraud. Let us, in essence, carve it out. But
you are not going anywhere with voter ID laws who discriminate against
the elderly, who discriminate against minorities, who discriminate
against those individuals who have lived long enough and served their
country long enough that they just might not remember where their birth
certificate is--or even their marriage certificate.
Significant momentum is going on this, and it is wrongheaded.
Opponents are having difficulty waging effective counterattacks to curb
the movement on these bills as majority leaderships, emboldened by
their increased numbers following in the 2010 midterm elections, are
more committed than they ever have been.
Let me congratulate the State of Ohio and Congresswoman Marcia Fudge,
where the people of that State defeated that draconian law and they
will not have the burden of their voter ID law in the 2012 Presidential
election. Yay for them. A battleground State where the people can vote
as they choose. And we're going to all realize that Ohioans will not be
encumbered by draconian laws. They will battle it out in the democratic
process and they will vote, and no one can block them from voting.
In 1890, the State of Mississippi, although African Americans made up
58 percent of the population, due to the structure of voting laws that
year in Mississippi, of the 134 elected delegates, only one was African
American, and that was during Reconstruction. It does not take a genius
to recognize that the African American vote was diluted.
We cannot allow history to repeat itself. That is why we have the
Voting Rights Act and why we are ever vigilant to guard against any
encroachments on the right to vote.
And so my argument is, today, that we're going to go across America--
and I appreciate my colleagues who have joined in this effort to go
across America--and we're going to introduce voting protection seminars
to ensure that every voter--minority voters and elderly voters--has a
right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad to have spoken to my State officials
today. I
[[Page H2307]]
will place this letter to Texas State officials in the Record.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 7, 2012.
Hon. Hope Andrade,
Secretary of State,
Austin, Texas.
Dear Secretary Andrade: Thank you for taking my call today
Monday, May 07, 2012 regarding the status of election law to
be utilized in the 2012 Texas Primary and on a possible run
off date. A formal public announcement must be made along
with the production of public awareness advertisements
outlining that the current law is still in place and
operational.
According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Perez ``with
regard to Section 9 and 15 of S.B. 14, concerning
photographic identification, I cannot conclude that the state
has sustained its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must
object to Sections 9 and 14 of S.B. 14.'' In effect, the
currently proposed photographic identification requirements
and related changes may not be implemented and are not
legally enforceable. The public must be made aware of the
current voting requirements.
The trial date is set for Monday, July 9, 2012 and
therefore all means currently permissible should be utilized
to ensure the public is made aware that there is currently no
requirement in the State of Texas for a state issued
photographic identification in order to vote in the upcoming
elections. Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward
to working with you.
Very Truly Yours,
Sheila Jackson Lee,
Member of Congress.
With that in mind, in the name of so many great leaders, from our
early Presidents who valued this historic democratic process to the
drafters of the Constitution that began to open the words of this great
book with the words, We have come together to establish justice, to
form a more perfect Union, to ensure domestic tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity to ordain and
establish the Constitution of the United States, voter ID laws do not
equal to liberty. They do not equal giving our posterity to our
children, grandchildren, the grandchildren's children and
grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren. The voter ID law is
oppressive and it denies the right to vote.
I cry in my heart, Mr. Speaker, for we have fallen victim to a
distortion of the right of people to vote and the distortion of the
blame game. And so State legislatures have attempted to say they're
doing something and, Mr. Speaker, they are not. They are not.
I would like to put into the Record a letter from the Department of
Justice dated May 4, 2012.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 4, 2012.
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Jackson Lee: This responds to your
recent inquiry to Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
Thomas E. Perez, regarding implementation of Texas S.B. 14
(2011).
On March 12, 2012, the Attorney General interposed an
objection, pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, to S.B. 14's photographic identification requirements
for in-person voting. The Attorney General's objection letter
is enclosed.
The photographic identification requirements and related
changes in S.B. 14 therefore may not be implemented, and are
legally unenforceable, until either the Attorney General's
objection is withdrawn, or until Texas obtains a judgment
from the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia preclearing these changes under Section 5. Texas has
sought such a judgment from the district court in State of
Texas v. Holder. No. 1:12 cv 00128 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 24,
2012), and that case is currently set for trial beginning
July 9, 2012.
We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate
to contact this office if we may provide additional
assistance regarding this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Ronald Weilch,
Assistant Attorney General.
Enclosure.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division,
Washington, DC, March 12, 2012.
Mr. Keith Ingram,
Director of Elections, Elections Division, Office of the
Texas Secretary of State, Austin, Texas.
Dear Mr. Ingram: This refers to Chapter 123 (S.B. 14)
(2011), which amends the Texas Transportation Code relating
to the issuance of election identification certificates, and
which amends the Texas Election Code relating to the
procedures for implementing the photographic identification
requirements, including registration procedures, provisional-
ballot procedures, notice requirements, and education and
training requirements, for the State of Texas, submitted to
the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received your
response to our January 9, 2012 follow-up to our September
23, 2011 request for additional information on January 12.
2012; additional information was received through February
17, 2012.
According to the 2010 Census, the State of Texas had a
total population of 25,145,561, of whom 9,460,921 (37.6%)
were Hispanic, 2,975,739 (11.8%) were black, 1,027,956 (4.1%)
were Asian, and 11,397,345 (45.3%) were Anglo. Texas's total
voting-age population was 18,279,737, of whom 6,143,144
(33.6%) were Hispanic, 2,102,474 (11.5%) were black, 758,636
(4.2%) were Asian, and 9,074,684 (49.6%) were Anglo. The
five-year aggregate American Community Survey (2006 2010)
estimates that Texas had a Hispanic citizen voting-age
population of 25.5 percent.
We have carefully considered the information you have
provided, as well as census data, comments and information
from other interested parties, and other information,
including the state's previous submissions. Under Section 5,
the Attorney General must determine whether the submitting
authority has met its burden of showing that the proposed
changes have neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race or color or
membership in a language minority group. Georgia v. United
States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973): Procedures for the
Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
28 C.F.R. 51.52(c). With regard to Sections 9 and 14 of S.B.
14, concerning photographic identification 51.52(c). With
regard to Sections 9 and 14 of S.B. 14, concerning
photographic identification requirements for in-person voting
and acceptable forms of photographic identification, I cannot
conclude that the state has sustained its burden under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Therefore, on behalf of
the Attorney General, I must object to Sections 9 and 14 of
S.B. 14.
We start our analysis recognizing the state's legitimate
interest in preventing voter fraud and safeguarding voter
confidence. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S.
181 (2008). In that vein, the state's sole justifications for
changing the current practice to require photographic
identification to vote in person that appear in the
legislative proceedings and are presented in its submission
are to ensure electoral integrity and deter ineligible voters
from voting. At the same time, we note that the state's
submission did not include evidence of significant in-person
voter impersonation not already addressed by the state's
existing laws.
The voting changes at issue must be measured against the
benchmark practice to determine whether they would ``lead to
a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with
respect to their effective exercise of the electoral
franchise.'' Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976).
In support of its position that this proposed requirement
will not have such a prohibited effect, the state provided
two sets of registered-voter data, which were matched with
two different data sources maintained by the state's
Department of Public Safety (DPS). One set was current as of
September 16, 2011, and the other as of early January 2012.
The September data reported that there were 12,780,841
registered voters, of whom 2,785,227 (21.8%) were Hispanic.
The January data reported that there were 12,892,280
registered voters, of whom 2,810,869 (21.8%) were Hispanic.
There is, however, a significant difference between the two
data sets with regard to the number and characteristics of
those registered voters without a driver's license or
personal identification card issued by DPS. The September
data indicate that 603,892 (4.7%) of the state's registered
voters do not have such identification; this population
consists of 174,866 voters (29.0% of the 603,892 voters) who
are Hispanic and 429,026 voters (71.0%) who are non-Hispanic.
The January data indicate that 795,955 (6.2%) of the state's
registered voters do not have such identification; this
population consists of 304,389 voters (38.2%) who are
Hispanic and 491,566 voters (61.8%) who are non-Hispanic. The
state has not provided an explanation for the disparate
results. More significantly, it declined to offer an opinion
on which of the two data sets is more accurate. Accordingly,
we have considered both in reviewing your submission.
Starting our analysis with the September data set, 6.3
percent of Hispanic registered voters do not have the forms
of identification described above, but only 4.3 percent of
non-Hispanic registered voters are similarly situated.
Therefore, a Hispanic voter is 46.5 percent more likely than
a non-Hispanic voter to lack these forms of identification.
In addition, although Hispanic voters represent only 21.8
percent of the registered voters in the state, Hispanic
voters represent fully 29.0 percent of the registered voters
without such identification.
Our analysis of the January data indicates that 10.8
percent of Hispanic registered voters do not have a driver's
license or personal identification card issued by DPS. but
only 4.9 percent of non-Hispanic registered voters do not
have such identification. So, Hispanic registered voters are
more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters
to lack such identification. Under the data provided in
January, Hispanics make up only 21.8 percent of all
registered voters, but fully 38.2 percent of the registered
voters who lack these forms of identification.
Thus, we conclude that the total number of registered
voters who lack a driver's license
[[Page H2308]]
or personal identification card issued by DPS could range
from 603,892 to 795,955. The disparity between the
percentages of Hispanics and non-Hispanics who lack these
forms of identification ranges from 46.5 to 120.0 percent.
That is, according to the state's own data, a Hispanic
registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially
120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered
voter to lack this identification. Even using the data most
favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack
either a driver's license or a personal identification card
issued by DPS, and that disparity is statistically
significant.
The state has provided no data on whether African American
or Asian registered voters are also disproportionately
affected by S.B. 14.
Sections 9 and 14 of S.B. 14 would also permit a voter to
vote in person using military photographic identification, a
United States citizenship certificate that contains the
person's photograph, a United States passport, or a license
to carry a concealed handgun. The state has produced no data
showing what percent of registered voters lack a driver's
license or personal identification card issued by DPS, but do
possess another allowable form of photographic
identification. Nor has the state provided any data on the
demographic makeup of such voters. In addition, when the
Texas Legislature was considering S.B. 14, there were a
number of legislative proposals to expand the forms of
identification that could be used by voters to meet this new
requirement--including proposals to allow any state-issued or
tribal identification with a photograph to be used for
regular voting--but those proposals were rejected.
In view of the statistical evidence illustrating the impact
of S.B. 14 on Hispanic registered voters, we turn to those
steps that the state has identified it will take to mitigate
that effect.
You have informed us that the DPS-issued ``free'' election
identification certificate, which is proposed to be
implemented by Section 20 of S.B. 14, would protect voters
who do not already have another acceptable form of
identification. The application process for these
certificates will mirror the manner in which a person obtains
a driver's license. First-time applicants will be required to
furnish various supplemental documents and undergo an
application process that includes fingerprinting and
traveling to a driver's license office.
An applicant for an election identification certificate
will be required to provide two pieces of secondary
identification, or one piece of secondary identification and
two supporting documents. If a voter does not possess any of
these documents, the least expensive option will be to spend
$22 on a copy of the voter's birth certificate. There is a
statistically significant correlation between the Hispanic
population percentage of a county and the percentage of a
county's population that lives below the poverty line. The
legislature tabled amendments that would have prohibited
state agencies from charging for any underlying documents
needed to obtain an acceptable form of photographic
identification.
As noted above, an applicant for an election identification
certificate will have to travel to a driver's license office.
This raises three discrete issues. First, according to the
most recent American Community Survey three-year estimates.
7.3 percent of Hispanic or Latino households do not have an
available vehicle, as compared with only 3.8 percent of non-
Hispanic white households that lack an available vehicle.
Statistically significant correlations exist between the
Hispanic voting-age population percentage of a county, and
the percentage of occupied housing units without a vehicle.
Second, in 81 of the state's 254 counties, there are no
operational driver's license offices. The disparity in the
rates between Hispanics and non-Hispanics with regard to the
possession of either a driver's license or personal
identification card issued by DPS is particularly stark in
counties without driver's license offices. According to the
September 2011 data, 10.0 percent of Hispanics in counties
without driver's license offices do not have either form of
identification, compared to 5.5 percent of non-Hispanics.
According to the January 2012 data, that comparison is 14.6
percent of Hispanics in counties without driver's license
offices, as compared to 8.8 percent of non-Hispanics. During
the legislative hearings, one senator stated that some voters
in his district could have to travel up to 176 miles
roundtrip in order to reach a driver's license office. The
legislature tabled amendments that would have, for example,
provided reimbursement to voters who live below the poverty
line for travel expenses incurred in applying for the
requisite identification.
The third and final point is the limited hours that such
offices are open. Only 49 of the 221 currently open driver's
license offices across the state have extended hours. Even
Senator Troy Fraser, the primary author of this legislation
in the Senate, acknowledged during the legislative hearing
that. ``You gotta work to make sure that [DPS offices] are
open.'' Despite the apparent recognition of the situation,
the legislature tabled an amendment that would have required
driver's license offices to be open until 7:00 p.m. or later
on at least one weekday and during four or more hours on at
least two Saturdays each month.
The legislation mandates a statewide voter-education effort
concerning the new identification requirement, but does not
provide specific standards for the program. The state,
however, has yet to approve a final version of the materials
designed to accomplish that goal, either for voters or for
election officials. The state has indicated that it will
implement a new educational program: but as of this date, our
information indicates that the currently proposed plan will
incorporate the new identification requirement into a general
voter-education program.
The legislation requires that poll-worker training
materials reflect the new identification requirements. This
is particularly vital because a poll-worker can permit a
voter to cast a ballot if the name as listed on the
documentation is ``substantially similar to but does not
match exactly'' the name on the voter registration list, and
if the voter also submits an affidavit stating that he or she
is the person on the list of registered voters. Though the
Secretary of State's office has adopted an administrative
rule to guide poll-workers in determining when names are
substantially similar, the rule gives poll-workers a great
deal of discretion. The state has provided no enforcement
guidelines to prevent the vagueness of this standard from
leading to inconsistency or bias in its application.
Even after submitting data that show over 600,000
registered voters do not have either a driver's license or
personal identification card issued by DPS--and that a
disproportionate share of those registered voters are
Hispanic--the state has failed to propose, much less adopt,
any program for individuals who have to travel a significant
distance to a DPS office, who have limited access to
transportation, or who are unable to get to a DPS office
during their hours of operation. This failure is particularly
noteworthy given Texas's geography and demographics, which
arguably make the necessity for mitigating measures greater
than in other states. The state also has not developed any
specific proposals to educate either voters about how to
comply with the new identification requirement or poll
officials about how to enforce the proposed change.
In conclusion, the state has not met its burden of proving
that, when compared to the benchmark, the proposed
requirement will not have a retrogressive effect, or that any
specific features of the proposed law will prevent or
mitigate that retrogression. Additionally, the state has
failed to demonstrate why it could not meet its stated goals
of ensuring electoral integrity and deterring ineligible
voters from voting in a manner that would have avoided this
retrogressive effect. Because we conclude that the state has
failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the proposed
law will not have a retrogressive effect, we do not make any
determination as to whether the state has established that
the proposed changes were adopted with no discriminatory
purpose.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submitting
authority has the burden of showing that a submitted change
has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory
effect. Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973): 28
C.F.R. 51.52. In light of the considerations discussed above,
I cannot conclude that your burden has been sustained in this
instance. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I
must object to the changes affecting voting that are
occasioned by Sections 9 and 14 of Chapter 123 (S.B. 14)
(2011). Sections 1 through 8, 10 through 13, 15, and 17
through 22 of S.B. 14 are directly related to the procedures
for implementing the photographic identification
requirements, including registration procedures, provisional-
ballot procedures, notice requirements, and education and
training requirements. Accordingly, no determination by the
Attorney General is required or appropriate under Section 5.
28 C.F.R. 51.22 and 51.35.
We note that under Section 5 you have the right to seek a
declaratory judgment from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia that these proposed changes
neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of denying
or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group. 28 C.F.R. 51.44. In
addition, you may request that the Attorney General
reconsider the objection. 28 C.F.R. 51.45. However, until the
objection is withdrawn or a judgment from the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia is obtained, the
submitted changes continue to be legally unenforceable. Clark
v. Roemer, 500 U.S. 646 (1991): 28 C.F.R. 51.10. To enable us
to meet our responsibility to enforce the Voting Rights Act,
please inform us of the action that the State of Texas plans
to take concerning this matter. If you have any questions,
you should contact Robert S. Berman (202/514 8690), a deputy
chief in the Voting Section.
Because the Section 5 status of this legislation is
presently before the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in State of Texas v. Holder, No. 1:12 cv
00128 (D.D.C.), we are providing the Court and counsel of
record with a copy of this letter.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Perez,
Assistant Attorney General.
{time} 1950
Finally, as I said, Mr. Speaker, as I hold this Constitution in my
hand, I certainly want to add to my plea an extended hand to ensure
that what our Founding Fathers wanted--to ensure domestic tranquility,
to establish justice, to secure the blessings of liberty--will be found
in the 2012 election, and
[[Page H2309]]
that because of one's ethnic or racial background or age or gender or
whether you live in the country, meaning in the rural areas of the
Nation, that you will not have a stop sign, a red stop sign that will
be standing at the door of a courthouse or the place where you vote.
You will not have a stop sign that says: Stop, you don't deserve the
blessings of liberty. You deserve to be treated in the ways of
yesteryear when people were second-class and third-class citizens.
I pray, as I know my Founding Fathers would offer, prayerful prayers
for all of America that we take this red map and turn it to a map of
brightness with a big sign: The door is open for legal voting,
unoppressed. You are protected and you are given the blessings of
liberty.
I thank my colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus. I thank all
those who are working on this issue, and I look forward in the State of
Texas that we work together that you can vote under the old laws and
you can vote on Sunday and you can go out and vote and you can have the
blessings of liberty that the Constitution has so given us.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the name of justice and to protect the right
to vote for all citizens. I am joined by fellow members of the
Congressional Black Caucus to speak about the need to protect our
democracy, to protect the voice of the American people, and to ensure
the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the
Constitution rather than a privilege afforded to the chosen few.
Today I join the CBC to bring additional scrutiny to the significant
changes being made to voting laws across our country. We must protect
the rights for all eligible citizens to vote. The right to vote is a
precious and sacred one in our country. Over the past few decades,
minorities in this country have witnessed a pattern of efforts to
intimidate and harass minority voters through so-called ``Voter ID''
requirements. I am sad to report that as we head into the 21st century,
these efforts continue.
I am well versed in the arguments both for and against Voter IDs.
Often the arguments for Voter IDs include the notion that we must
protect against fraud, yet there is little to no real evidence that
rampant voter fraud exists or that it would be prevented by Voter ID
cards. On balance there is significant evidence that minorities would
be negatively impacted by voter ID requirements.
As a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I called for an
immediate investigation of these instances. Many of these incidents of
voter intimidation were occurring in predominately minority
neighborhoods and have been directed at African-Americans and Latinos.
It is unconscionable to think that anyone would deliberately employ the
use of such forceful and intimidating tactics to undermine the
fundamental, Constitutional right to vote. However, such conduct has
regrettably occurred in Houston, and I urge you to take appropriate
action to ensure that it does not recur.
Instances of voter intimidation are not long ago and far away. Just
last year I sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to draw
his attention to several disturbing instances of voter intimidation
that had taken place in Houston. In a single week there were at least
15 reports of abuse of voter rights throughout the city of Houston.
I am here once more in the name of freedom, patriotism, and
democracy. I am here to demand that the long hard fought right to vote
continues to be protected.
TEXAS LEGISLATION, SB14
I am a Representative from the State of Texas and as you are all
aware, my State has recently adopted a voter identification law that is
among the most restrictive in the Nation. This law passed both chambers
of the Texas legislature after lengthy floor debates. The Texas House
approved the measure 101 48 late in the night after more than eleven
hours of debate that included some 40 proposed amendments. Although it
was evident that this bill had significant opposition, the bill was
fast-tracked as a ``legislative emergency.'' The Voter ID bill was
fast-tracked at a time when there were urgent threats to state services
due to a $10 billion budget shortfall.
Under SB14, would require Texas voters to show a non-expired:
Texas driver's license,
state ID card,
military ID,
US passport or
citizenship ID to vote.
Texas concealed handgun license to the list.
SB14, Banned the following forms of identification:
driver's licenses from other states,
college IDs,
birth certificates and other identification documents.
Voters over 70 are not exempted from any of these requirements.
Those without the requisite ID would have to cast provisional ballots
that would be counted only if the voter returned with valid ID within
six days after the election.
While similar proposals were defeated in past years, Texas Gov. Rick
Perry designated the legislation as an emergency to allow it to be
procedurally fast-tracked through the legislature to avoid the debates
that derailed such efforts in previous years.
As a preclearance state under the Voting Rights Act, Texas had to
submit any electoral changes for approval by the U.S. Department of
Justice for review under the Voting Rights Act.
I hold in my hand a letter from the Department of Justice and I quote
from this letter ``with regard to Section 9 and 15 of S.B. 14,
concerning photographic identification, I cannot conclude that the
state has sustained its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. Therefore, on the behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to
Sections 9 and 14 of S.B. 14.'' In effect, the currently proposed
photographic identification requirements and related changes may not be
implemented and are not legally enforceable. Texans need to be informed
about this turn of events. S.B.14 is not legally binding. The public
must be made aware that right now in the state of Texas there is no
requirement for a Voter ID card in order to vote! May I remind you that
no right is more fundamental than the right to vote.
THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS OUR RIGHT TO VOTE
It is protected by more constitutional amendments--the 1st, 14th,
15th, 19th, 24th and 26th--than any other right we enjoy as Americans.
Broad political participation ensures the preservation of all our other
rights and freedoms. 3 State laws that impose new restrictions on
voting, however, undermine our strong democracy by impeding access to
the polls and reducing the number of Americans who vote and whose votes
are counted.
My State is not the only State undergoing attempts to restrict voting
rights. There have been several restrictive voting bills considered and
approved by States in the past several years.
VOTER ID LAWS
The most commonly advanced initiatives are laws that require voters
to present photo identification when voting in person. Additionally,
States have proposed or passed laws to require proof of citizenship
when registering to vote; to eliminate the right to register to vote
and to submit a change of address within the same State on Election
Day; to shorten the time allowed for early voting; to make it more
difficult for third-party organizations to conduct voter registration;
and even to eliminate a mandate on poll workers to direct voters who go
to the wrong precinct.
These recent changes are on top of the disfranchisement laws in 48
States that deprive an estimated 5.3 million people with criminal
convictions--disproportionately African Americans and Latinos--of their
political voice.
Voter ID laws are becoming increasingly common across the country.
Today, 31 States have laws requiring voters to present some form of
identification to vote in Federal, State and local elections, although
some laws or initiatives passed in 2011 have not yet gone into effect.
Some must also be pre-cleared under the Voting Rights Act prior to
implementation. In 16 of those 31 States, voters must (or will soon be
required to) present a photo ID--that in many States must be
government-issued--in order to cast a ballot.
Voter ID laws deny the right to vote to thousands of registered
voters who do not have, and, in many instances, cannot obtain the
limited identification States accept for voting. Many of these
Americans cannot afford to pay for the required documents needed to
secure a government issued photo ID. As such, these laws impede access
to the polls and are at odds with the fundamental right to vote.
In total, more than 21 million Americans of voting age lack
documentation that would satisfy photo ID laws, and a disproportionate
number of these Americans are low-income, racial and ethnic minorities,
and elderly. As many as 25 percent of African Americans of voting age
lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8 percent of their
white counterparts. Eighteen percent of Americans over the age of 65 do
not have government-issued photo ID.
Laws requiring photo identification to vote are a ``solution'' in
search of a problem. There is no credible evidence that in-person
impersonation voter fraud--the only type of fraud that photo IDs could
prevent--is even a minor problem. Multiple studies have found that
almost all cases of alleged in-person impersonation voter ``fraud'' are
actually the result of a voter making an inadvertent mistake about
their eligibility to vote, and that even these mistakes are extremely
infrequent.
It is important, instead, to focus on both expanding the franchise
and ending practices
[[Page H2310]]
which actually threaten the integrity of the elections, such as
improper purges of voters, voter harassment, and distribution of false
information about when and where to vote. None of these issues,
however, are addressed or can be resolved with a photo ID requirement.
Furthermore, requiring voters to pay for an ID, as well as the
background documents necessary to obtain an ID in order to vote, is
tantamount to a poll tax. Although some States issue IDs for free, the
birth certificates, passports, or other documents required to secure a
government-issued ID cost money, and many Americans simply cannot
afford to pay for them. In addition, obtaining a government-issued
photo ID is not an easy task for all members of the electorate. Low-
income individuals who lack the funds to pay for documentation, people
with disabilities with limited access to transportation, and elderly
Americans who never had a birth certificate and cannot obtain alternate
proof of their birth in the U.S., are among those who face significant
or insurmountable obstacles to getting the photo ID needed to exercise
their right to vote.
Because of Texas' recently passed voter ID law, an estimated 36,000
people in West Texas's District 19 are 137 miles from the nearest full
service Department of Public Safety office, where those without IDs
must travel to preserve their right to vote under the state's new law.
In addition, women who have changed their names due to marriage or
divorce often experience difficulties with identity documentation, as
did Andrea, who recently moved from Massachusetts to South Carolina and
who, in the span of a month, spent more than 17 hours online and in
person trying without success to get a South Carolina driver's license.
Voter ID laws send not-so-subtle messages about who is and is not
encouraged to vote. As States approve laws requiring photo ID to vote,
each formulates its own list of acceptable forms of documentation.
Another common thread emerging from disparate state approaches is a
bias against robust student electoral participation.
Henceforth, students at Wisconsin colleges and universities will not
be able to vote using their student ID cards, unless those cards have
issuance dates, expiration dates, and signatures.
Currently, only a handful of Wisconsin colleges and universities are
issuing compliant IDs. Nor will South Carolina, Texas, or Tennessee
accept student identification at the polls.
Policies that limit students' electoral participation are
particularly suspect, appearing on the heels of unprecedented youth
turnout in the 2008 election.
Voter ID proposals have a forceful momentum this year not seen in
years past, part of broader legislative movements to limit access to
the political process for disenfranchised groups at a level not seen
since post-reconstruction era laws implementing poll taxes and literacy
tests. In just over the first two months of 2011, photo ID proposals
have been introduced in 32 States and passed out of one legislative
chamber in 12 States.
Since 2001, more than 700 voter identification bills have been
introduced in 46 States, according to the National Conference of State
Legislatures. A dozen States have passed new voter ID laws since 2003,
but only 8 States require photo ID of voters and only two have laws as
strict as those being proposed this year.
Lawmakers across the Nation have pinpointed photo ID as a top
legislative priority. Just remember that the governor of Texas
designated photo ID as a legislative emergency in order to allow it to
be procedurally fast-tracked through the legislature, photo ID
proposals were pre-filed before legislative sessions began in half a
dozen States, and secretaries of state in a number of States have
listed photo ID as a top priority.
I stand ever ready to fight these attempts to hinder the right to
vote for seniors, minorities and low income Americans. I stand ever
ready to protect the right to vote and preserve this right for future
generations.
Map of Shame: Vote Suppression Legislation by State
Election Protection: You Have The Right To Vote
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
(For more information about registration and voting laws in your state,
visit www.mapofshame.com)
States with Proof of Citizenship Laws--AZ, KS, TN, AL, GA.
States with Repressive Election Legislation--OH, FL.
Governor Vetoed Photo Voter ID Law--NH, NC, MO, MN, MT.
TX*, KS*, WI*, IN, TN*, MS, AL*, GA, SC*--Require Photo
Voter ID Only.
(*Law takes effect in 2012 and beyond.)
RI, HI, ID, SD, MI, OK, LA, FL--Photo Voter ID Requested.
WA, CA, NV, AK, MT, CO, NM, NE, MN, IA, MO, IL, AR, OH, NY,
PA, WV, VA, NC, ME, NH, MA, CT, NJ, DE, MD--Photo Voter ID
Legislation Proposed.
OR, WY, UT, AZ, ND, KY, VT--No Existing Photo Voter ID Law,
No Current Legislation.
States Where Voting Changes Were Pursued and Types of Changes Enacted
Legislation introduced--AK, OR, CA, NV, MT, CO, NM, NE, KS,
TX, MN, IA, MO, AR, WI, IL, TN, MS, OH, WV, VA, NC, AL, GA,
FL, SC, MD, DE, NJ, CT, RI, MA, NH, ME, NY, PA, HI.
Photo ID requirements passed--KS, TX, WI, TN, AL, SC, RI.
Proof of citizenship passed--KS, TN, AL.
Restrictions on voter registration passed--TX, OH, ME, FL.
Restrictions on early/absentee voting passed--TN, GA, FL,
WV, OH.
Executive action making it harder to restore voting
rights--IA, FL.
____________________