[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.

                          ____________________