[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H652-H657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1610
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join in this Special Order,
a bipartisan one, in which I thank my judiciary colleague and former
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin,
for joining me in this discussion, as well as Congressman Bobby Scott
of Virginia, also a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and
former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
Members of the House, just days before the anniversary of the Edmund
Pettus Bridge march from Montgomery to Selma--and by the way, our
colleague, Congressman John Lewis, was the only Member of Congress who
was in that march--the Supreme Court will review Congress' authority
under the Constitution to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act,
specifically section 5 of that act. I believe and I am confident the
Supreme Court will and should uphold the constitutionality of Congress'
authorization of section 5 for three reasons. The first: Protecting
minority voting rights is a constitutional imperative that Congress is
required to enforce.
When Congress acts under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, it
acts at the zenith of its constitutional authority. The Supreme Court
has consistently upheld Congress' authority under the 15th Amendment.
The 15th Amendment gives Congress a mandate to eliminate racial
discrimination in voting by appropriate legislation. After almost a
century of ineffective protection for minorities, and in the long wake
of the Civil War, Congress took action to pass the 15th Amendment, and
almost a hundred years later passed the Voting Rights Act, which
included section 5. Protecting minority voting rights is something
Congress can do, and this authority has been repeatedly affirmed by the
United States Supreme Court.
For almost 50 years, the Supreme Court consistently affirmed
Congress' authority to protect minority voting rights under section 5
of the Voting Rights Act. Legal challenges to section 5 are nothing new
to Congress, and are nothing new to the Court. Legal challenges to
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act have routinely been made after
Congress has reauthorized temporary provisions.
The Supreme Court first affirmed the constitutionality of section 5
in 1966. In the case of South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Supreme Court
upheld the Voting Rights Act, including section 5. The Court in that
decision cited Congress' careful study and the voluminous legislative
history underlying the Voting Rights Act as the basis for upholding it.
During Congress' most recent authorization of section 5 in 2006, both
the Senate and the House studied the continued need for section 5 by
amassing an extensive record that totaled over 15,000 pages, spanned 20
hearings, and included testimony from a total of 96 witnesses
representing interests ranging from Federal and State executive
officials to civil rights leaders and others. Those 15,000 pages were
amassed by the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary
Committee as well.
Congress paid careful attention to the Court's decisions throughout
the reauthorization process and acted consistent with them to the
extent of the law, and only after commencing the evidence, strongly
suggested widespread violations of the 15th Amendment, which led to
ample justification for congressional action.
The result, on July 13, 2006, was the largest bipartisan vote in
Voting Rights Act history, with a vote of 390-33 in the House and
unanimous passage in the Senate, 98-0.
Although dicta from the Court's Namundo decision in 2009 suggested
that the burdens of section 5 may be unnecessary because times have
changed, Congress found that the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
While we have made progress, Congress continues to find that racial
discrimination in voting is still present and remains concentrated in
those places covered by section 5. Unfortunately, the methods of
discrimination have also become more sophisticated. I believe that the
Court will recognize what Congress found in 2006--that the work of
section 5 is not yet complete.
The protections in section 5 don't solely impact our Federal voting
processes, but rather the breadth of section 5 extends to the smallest
cities and most centralized local governments. When a voting change
discriminates against local citizens even at the local level, section 5
has the ability to halt the impact of discrimination. Without section
5's strength to arrest the discrimination at the outset, the burden of
remedying the discrimination would be on these local citizens.
The facts in Shelby County v. Holder further magnify the importance
of section 5 to protect the voting rights of minorities. In the Shelby
case, the Justice Department rejected an electoral map drawn by a city
in Shelby County which would have decreased the number of black voters
from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent. In this instance, section 5
preserved the ability of the African American community in the city to
elect their candidate of choice to the city council. Shelby County,
along with many examples examined by Congress in 2006, highlights the
importance of reauthorization of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act is an important matter
for the Court to consider and continue to review, and is important to
the democratic ideals of this country.
We believe the Supreme Court owes much deference to the considered
judgment of the people's elected representatives since Congress
continues to find that racial discrimination in voting is present and
remains concentrated in many of the places covered by section 5. We
expect the United States Supreme Court to continue to declare that
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is critical to protecting minority
voting rights--all voting rights--well into the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan
for yielding.
I was the principal author of the Voting Rights Act extension in
2006, which did pass this House 390-33, and unanimously was passed by
the Senate.
{time} 1620
The Shelby County case concentrates on the constitutionality of
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and that is the section that
requires pre-clearance of electoral changes in covered jurisdictions.
The plaintiffs in the Shelby County case allege that since things have
changed since 1965, section 5 is no longer applicable. They're wrong.
When Congress considered, in 2006, the extension of the Voting Rights
Act, including section 5, the Constitution Subcommittee of the House
Judiciary Committee had probably the most extensive legislative record
in the history of this Congress compiled, 12,000 pages on this side of
the Capitol, numerous hearings, numerous witnesses, including those who
were opposed to section 5, and even those who were opposed to the
entire concept of the Voting Rights Act. So every viewpoint was heard;
and the mountain of testimony, I don't think, can be equaled by any
other issue that Congress has discussed, in my memory, and maybe in the
history of the Republic.
I want to make two points. The first point is that all of that
testimony very clearly shows that, even in the years immediately prior
to 2006, there were attempts at discrimination made, mainly by local
governments, to attempt to disenfranchise minority voters. And, in
fact, over 700 requests for
[[Page H653]]
pre-clearance were denied, I believe, in the 10-year period prior to
the hearings being held. So there still are attempts being made to
disenfranchise minority voters, and the Congress found that; and that
legislative record should be enough to persuade the Court that those of
us who are elected representatives of the people had ample evidence to
make a considered judgment on this issue.
The second point that needs to be made is that, right from the
beginning of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, there was a procedure that
would allow a covered jurisdiction to bail out of section 5 coverage,
and that can be done by showing that there are no attempts to
disenfranchise minority voters to the satisfaction of the Justice
Department. A few jurisdictions have availed themselves of the bailout
provision and have succeeded and thus are no longer under section 5.
What the plaintiffs in the Shelby County case want to do is, rather
than going and presenting evidence that they are not discriminating
anymore and saying that they qualify for the bailout, they want to go
to court to throw the whole of section 5 out. It is like dealing with
this issue with a blunderbuss rather than with a rifle shot or a
surgical strike.
Now, if any of the plaintiffs in this case are clean, I believe that
they ought to tell the Court why they're going to court, rather than
using the provisions that have been in the law for close to 50 years to
bail out, because they are clean.
When I was in law school, I was always taught that when you wanted to
get equity, you ought to come in with clean hands. Well, if you have
clean hands, the bailout is made for you. And if you don't have clean
hands, then the Supreme Court should tell you to go wash up.
The Court should uphold the Voting Rights Act, should uphold section
5, as extensively considered by Congress and reauthorized, and rule in
favor of the government.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his
observations and his continuing support of this very important act from
the beginning. He was there when it started, and he's still with it. I
congratulate you, sir.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased now to yield as much time
as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Bobby
Scott, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I'm proud to join the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from
Michigan, who were leaders in the reauthorization of the Voting Rights
Act in 2006. They were there and have been fighting the battle for
voting rights for a long time. The leadership in reauthorization was
obviously the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Michigan
and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. Speaker, a right to vote is the very foundation of our democracy.
The Supreme Court noted in Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964 that no right is
more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the
election of those who make laws under which, as good citizens, we must
live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to
vote is undermined.
From its initial passage of the Voting Rights Act, Congress has
relied on an extensive record of discrimination in voting to justify
the continued need for remedies imposed by the expiring provisions. In
the original enactment of the Voting Rights Act and its subsequent
reauthorization, Congress has made sure that voting rights remedies are
proportionate to the problems Congress sought to secure.
In the reauthorization process in 2006, the gentleman from Wisconsin
and the gentleman from Michigan made sure that we listened to each and
every witness. They had long hearings and heard all kinds of different
schemes to undermine the right to vote; and in the end, we reauthorized
the Voting Rights Act.
As a result of the Voting Rights Act, since 1964--it was passed in
1965, but since 1964, the number of Black elected officials has
increased from a nationwide total of 300 in 1964 to over 9,000 today.
The Congressional Black Caucus grew from three prior to the Voting
Rights Act to 43 today.
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, my home State, there were no African
Americans in the General Assembly in 1965. Now there are 18 members of
the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus. Clearly, these numbers show that
many of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act have made a difference.
Section 5 is one of the Voting Rights Act's most important
provisions. It requires covered jurisdictions to submit planned changes
in their election laws to Federal officials for prior approval. They
have to show that the change does not have a discriminatory effect or
intent.
The jurisdictions covered by section 5 were selected the old
fashioned way: they earned it, by implementing poll taxes, literacy
tests, gerrymandered election districts and other schemes.
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to section 5. In
Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge will be to try to eliminate the
requirement for covered jurisdictions to secure that pre-clearance from
the Department of Justice or a Federal Court in Washington, D.C. They
are arguing that the current evidence of racial discriminatory
practices in covered jurisdictions is inadequate to support section 5;
but the record of section 5-based objections has shown that section 5
is needed.
Since 2006, when we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, more than 750
objections have been lodged by the Department of Justice to changes in
election procedures through the pre-clearance provision in section 5,
finding that those 750 changes violated the Voting Rights Act. Those
are changes in election laws that the jurisdictions knew they had to
submit to Justice.
Now, just exactly what kind of changes would they have enacted if
they hadn't been required to pre-clear their new laws?
Their bipartisan congressional report in 1982 warned that without
this section discrimination would reappear overnight. That's because
without this section there would be no effective deterrent in passing
discriminatory laws.
Section 5 offers a type of relief that is not available in any other
provision of the act. Without section 5's relief, jurisdictions with a
history of discrimination could pass discriminatory changes in their
election laws, and then the victim of the discrimination would bear the
costs of litigation and bear the burden of proof to overturn the law.
{time} 1630
If overturned, finally, then they could do another scheme and the
process would start all over. If those impacted negatively by the
discriminatory laws could not raise the money, then they're just stuck
with the discriminatory plan.
Now, a lot of these plans are inflicted on small counties where
people just do not have the resources to launch expensive, complex
litigation. And so it is unfair to impose on them the burden of
protecting their voting rights when you know from history that the
covered jurisdictions have a history of discrimination.
Now, one of the problems with the elimination of section 5 is that
once the small counties raise all the money, get to litigation, finally
get a final judgment, and overturn it, the perpetrators of the scheme
already would have achieved their goal. They got elected. They were
able to represent the area and cast all the votes. And then in the end,
when they're finally caught discriminating, they get to run as
incumbents, with all the advantages of incumbency. The magic of section
5 is that the illegal scheme never goes into effect to begin with.
Now, there is a provision, as the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed
out, for covered jurisdictions to bail out if they feel they have
stopped discriminating. But all they have to do to bail out is first
prove that they haven't gotten caught discriminating in 10 years.
Now, the process is simple. For those who have attempted to bail out,
they've been able to bail out. There is no barrier, essentially no
barrier, to bailing out from under the provisions of section 5, other
than the fact that you couldn't have been caught discriminating in the
previous 10 years.
Striking section 5 will essentially turn our country to a pre-1965
election
[[Page H654]]
system. Mr. Speaker, at a time when America has staked so much of its
international reputation on the need to spread democracy around the
world, we must ensure its vitality here at home and preserve section 5
of the Voting Rights Act.
I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for all of his
leadership in voting rights and civil rights over the years.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his very astute
and precise evaluation of the continuing importance of section 5 to the
Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 37 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. I would now be pleased to yield to the gentlelady from
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, as much time as she may consume.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman very much, and thank him
for convening this historic special order. It's historic because it is
led by the Honorable John Conyers, who has actually walked the historic
steps that generated the actual passing of the Voting Rights Act of
1965.
I think it is appropriate to put on the record again, as we've done
often, that Mr. Conyers is the only elected official, certainly Member
of the United States Congress, that can claim that they were endorsed
by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I know that the Honorable Bobby Scott
and myself admire that and have benefited from the deep knowledge that
John Conyers has on these important issues.
And I would offer, in my brief commentary this afternoon, to try to
track the vitality of the Voting Rights Act in its series of
reauthorizations so that people can actually see that this is not
legislation of whiners, this is not a legislation that is not in love
with America, does not believe in the freedom of America's values and
choice and being able to vote unencumbered, or not view the integrity
of State election officials throughout the country. But it really is,
if you will, a testament to the fact that laws can make things better.
In actuality, the Voting Rights Act is a codification of the 15th
Amendment that no one shall be denied the right to vote on account of
race or color. That was a necessary amendment and followed in the
tradition of the 13th and 14th Amendments, which provide for due
process and equal treatment under the law.
Then, of course, the 15th Amendment, which says that the vote is
precious. It's so precious, and sometimes we forget that it was
actually embodied in the Bill of Rights or in the context of the
Constitution, that the 15th Amendment was, in fact, protecting the
right to vote.
So the Voting Rights Act came as the leaders of this Nation watched
the deterioration of the right to vote in certain parts of this Nation.
And I would argue that that is true even today.
We heard on the floor that there is a way to, in essence, move
yourself out of the Voting Rights Act by showing 10 years of, might I
say with all due respect, good behavior.
But as we have watched over the last few years, let me recount for
you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had incidences that impact school boards
to governorships, if you will, or school boards to statehouses, and
school boards to congressional seats, where there have been instances
that have required the intervention of preclearance under the Voting
Rights Act of section 5.
I would venture to say that no one has been hurt by that, that it has
only enhanced the opportunity to vote. In the State of Texas, for
example, in the last 2 years, there was an issue of purging voters. It
so happened that those who were being purged were predominantly
Hispanic and African American. In the last election of 2012, the State
of Florida was poised to purge some 1 million voters, and through
oversight of the Department of Justice that was, in essence, stopped.
In addition, we've had a series of what we've called voter ID laws,
which came about and were born post, if you will, the election of 2010.
Those voter ID laws were determined through preclearance to have a
deteriorating effect on the vote of those who were needed to carry
forth a vote.
And so I would make the argument that the voter ID laws were, in
essence, prevented from taking the vote away under the 15th Amendment,
the Voting Rights Act, because we had section 5. And so the Texas voter
ID law was declared to not meet the standards under section 5
preclearance, that it would hamper people from voting. And, in essence,
it hampered people from voting because it did not have the process to
get your voter ID in all the counties in the State of Texas.
So if you were in a county without a place to get your voter ID, if
you didn't have the money, you clearly were prevented from voting. And
that covered voters from all different races--voter ID laws that
happened in Mississippi, voter ID laws that happened in Ohio. Some of
them were undone through election processes, but the preclearance truly
impacts real lives.
I remember as a junior member of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, which I work for, doing registration in the Deep South, as
it was defined in those years, in South Carolina, going onto
plantations where sharecroppers worked and the intimidation of the
process of not only registering, but voting. We were there to register
to vote.
The reason why I know there was intimidation is because as I was
approaching a voting station, which was a tattered area--when I say
tattered, the voting booth was a tattered cloth from an old general
store. My commentary is not to speak of that particular era of voting,
but it was to say to you that I was promptly shot at for approaching. I
was a stranger. And the next thing I knew we were running for cover.
But all I was coming to do was to check the voting process out to
ensure that the employees of that plantation, sharecroppers, were
coming and could vote unencumbered.
So the Voting Rights Act is about unencumbered voting. What person
would want to deny that?
Tomorrow, we will have a hearing before the United States Supreme
Court in the Shelby case. And my argument--I'm not making the argument
before the Supreme Court as we speak today--but my argument is that
facts will speak for themselves. The courts will address the question
of law, and they will listen to the proponents and the opponents.
I hope and pray that the Justices will understand that the
underpinnings of the argument are based upon fact. And in the last
election of 2012, there was an enormous mountain of facts that showed
that in the nooks and crannies of America there were voters who were
denied the right to vote. In 2008, voters were denied the right to
vote--issues such as moving various polling places that were in
minority neighborhoods, the misrepresentation of the message going out
about felons would be arrested at the polls, as if the felons who could
not vote would be showing up at the polls, or others being determined
to be a felon and not be a felon, the misidentification of voters,
sending them away.
{time} 1640
I would just make the argument that this is a factual basis for which
we need this. The fact that we have had these kinds of incidences shows
the value of the Voting Rights Act section 5 preclearance. We show the
value through 15,000 pages of documentation in the 2006
reauthorization, which was led by this Judiciary Committee, of which
those of us on the floor today are members, led by John Conyers and, of
course, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
So let me conclude by thanking the chairman for his very kind
yielding. I'll indicate that we can speak about the four corners of
section 5, Supreme Court case that has reaffirmed it, but this is a
question of fact. Until we eliminate the facts across America that
people are denied the right to vote on the basis of their color and/or
their race, then we have a reason for section 5 preclearance.
With that, I yield back in the name of freedom, in the name of
justice, and in the name of those who lost their lives fighting for
such and fighting for America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the need to protect
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 being treated as though it is privilege.
[[Page H655]]
If you are a Constitutional Scholar this is an exciting time because
the United States Supreme Court has a very active docket this term,
deciding on matters which have great import to every American.
And pursuant to that, in less than two days the Supreme Court will
hear the case of Shelby County Alabama v. Holder. The issue in this
case is whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of
Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth
Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.
The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 in this case was
brought by Shelby County, Ala., which is a majority white suburb of
Birmingham.
In rejecting the County's arguments Judge Bates agreed with an
earlier unanimous decision, by a three-judge panel of the D.C. District
Court, which likewise upheld the constitutionality of Section 5, in a
case brought by a local Texas utility district, which is my home state.
That earlier decision, however, was vacated in 2009 when the Supreme
Court decided that the utility district could pursue a statutory
``bailout'' from Section 5 coverage.
Unlike the Texas utility district, Shelby County freely admitted that
it has a recent history of voting discrimination that disqualified it
from ``bailing out.''
I am joined by my colleagues here today to call on all Americans to
reject and denounce tactics and measures that have absolutely no place
in our democracy. I call on African-Americans, Hispanic and Latino
Americans, as well as Asian-American voters to band together to fight
for their right to vote and to work together to understand their voting
rights which are granted to citizens of our nation by our laws and our
Constitution.
I call on these citizens to stand against harassment and
intimidation, to vote in the face of such adversity. The most effective
way to curb tactics of intimidation and harassment is to vote. Is to
stand together to fight against any measures that would have the effect
of preventing every eligible citizen from being able to vote. Voting
ensures active participation in democracy.
As a Member of this body and of the House Judiciary Committee which
has primary jurisdiction over voting matters, I firmly believe that we
must protect the rights of all eligible citizens to vote. 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.
Never in the history of our nation, has the effect of one person, one
vote, been more important. A great Spanish Philosopher, George
Santayana once said ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to
repeat it.'' Our history has taught us that denying the right to vote
based on race, gender or class is a stain on the democratic principles
that we all value. The Voting Rights Act was a reaction to the actions
of our passed and a way to pave the road to a new future.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was adopted in 1965 and was extended in
1970, 1975, and 1982. This legislation is considered the most
successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United
States Congress. Contrary to the prevailing rumor that the Act is due
to expire, leaving minorities with no rights, the Act is actually due
for reauthorization in the 2nd session of the 108th Congress-there is
no doubt about whether it will continue to protect our rights in the
future.
The VRA codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent
guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the
right to vote on account of race or color. Adopted at a time when
African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern
states, the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote to
citizens of all U.S. states.
By 1965, proponents of disenfranchisement made violent attempts to
thwart the efforts of civil rights activists. The murder of voting-
rights activists in Philadelphia and Mississippi gained national
attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism.
Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on
peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama,
en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President
and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective
voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong
voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that
would become the Voting Rights Act.
Congress adopted this far-reaching statute in response to a rash of
instances of interference with attempts by African American citizens to
exercise their right to vote--a rash that appears to be manifesting
itself again in this nation. Perhaps a legislative measure is needed to
respond in a way that the VRA did.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VRA in 1966 in
a landmark decision--South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-
28:
Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was
inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination
in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and
energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics
invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring
nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth
Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage
of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its
victims.
It seems that the ``obstructionist tactics'' that threatened the
aggrieved parties in Katzenbach have returned. The advantages of ``time
and inertia'' that were shifted from bigoted bureaucrats to minority
victims are slowly shifting back against their favor when educators,
government leaders, and agencies are allowed to contravene the policy
and legal conclusions given by the highest court in the country.
Several factors influenced the initiation of this civil rights
legislation. The first was a large shift in the number of African
Americans away from the Republican Party. Second, many Democrats felt
that it was a mistake of its Southern members to oppose civil rights
legislation because they could lose more of the African American and
liberal votes.
No right is more fundamental than the 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. Third, 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.
VOTER IDENTIFICATION
There have been several restrictive voting bills considered and
approved by states in the past several years. 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% of African Americans of voting age lack
government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% 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 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
[[Page H656]]
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. For example, 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.
Four states with new voter identification mandates, including my home
state of Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, are required
under the Voting Rights Act to have these voting changes pre-cleared by
either the Department of Justice (DOJ) or a panel of federal judges.
Before they may be implemented, DOJ must certify that these laws do not
have the purpose or effect of restricting voting by racial or language
minority groups.
Thus far, South Carolina and Texas both have submitted applications
to DOJ that have been formally opposed in written submissions. DOJ has
requested further information from both states, and the applications
are on hold. Alabama's ID requirements do not take effect until 2014,
so the state has not yet applied to DOJ for preclearance. Mississippi's
voter ID requirement was approved by voters on November 8, 2011, so a
preclearance request has not yet been submitted.
In countries scattered across this earth, citizens are denied the
right to speak their hearts and minds. In this country, only a few
decades ago, the right to vote was limited by race, sex, or the
financial ability to own land. When a vote is not cast, it is a
referendum on all those who fought so hard and tirelessly for our
rights. When a vote is cast, it is cast not only for you and the future
but also for all those who never had the chance to pull a lever.
We are still working to make Martin Luther King's dream a reality, a
reality in which our government's decisions are made out in the open
not behind cigar filled closed doors.
The time to take back the country is at hand, and we are the ones
with the power to do just that. To do so we must allow all citizens who
are eligible to vote, with the right to excise this decision without
tricks or tactics to dilute their right to vote.
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 report of abuse of voter rights throughout the city of Houston.
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.
I am here today 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.
A long, bitter, and bloody struggle was fought for the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 so that all Americans could enjoy the right to vote,
regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Americans died in
that fight so that others could achieve what they had been forcefully
deprived of for centuries--the ability to walk freely and without fear
into the polling place and cast a voting ballot.
Efforts to keep minorities from fully exercising that franchise,
however, continue. Indeed, in the past thirty years, we have witnessed
a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters including
efforts that were deemed ``Ballot Security'' programs that include the
mailing of threatening notices to African-American voters, the carrying
of video cameras to monitor polls, the systematic challenging of
minority voters at the polls on unlawful grounds, and the hiring of
guards and off-duty police officers to intimidate and frighten voters
at the polls.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a particularly poor
track record when it comes to documented acts of voter intimidation. In
1982, a Federal Court in New Jersey provided a consent order that
forbids the Republican National Committee from undertaking any ballot
security activities in a polling place or election district where race
or ethnic composition is a factor in the decision to conduct such
activities and where a purpose or significant effect is to deter
qualified voters from voting. These reprehensible practices continue to
plague our Nation's minority voters.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT HISTORY
August 6, 2011, marked the 46th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.
Most Americans take the right to vote for granted. We assume that we
can register and vote if we are over 18 and are citizens. Most of us
learned in school that discrimination based on race, creed or national
origin has been barred by the Constitution since the end of the Civil
War.
Before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, however, the right to vote did not
exist in practice for most African Americans. And, until 1975, most
American citizens who were not proficient in English faced significant
obstacles to voting, because they could not understand the ballot.
Even though the Indian Citizenship Act gave Native Americans the
right to vote in 1924, state law determined who could actually vote,
which effectively excluded many Native Americans from political
participation for decades.
Asian Americans and Asian immigrants also have suffered systematic
exclusion from the political process and it has taken a series of
reforms, including repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943, and
passage of amendments strengthening the Voting Rights Act three decades
later, to fully extend the franchise to Asian Americans. It was with
this history in mind that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to
make the right to vote a reality for all Americans.
And the Voting Rights Act has made giant strides toward that goal.
Without exaggeration, it has been one of the most effective civil
rights laws passed by Congress.
In 1964, there were only approximately 300 African-Americans in
public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black
elected officials were elected anywhere in the South. Today there are
more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of
Congress, the largest number ever. The act has opened the political
process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials
that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the
state or federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. And Native
Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh
barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly.
We must not forget the importance of protecting this hard earned
right.
VOTER ID
An election with integrity is one that is open to every eligible
voter. Restrictive voter ID requirements degrade the integrity of our
elections by systematically excluding large numbers of eligible
Americans.
I do not argue with the notion that we must prevent individuals from
voting who are not allowed to vote. Yet a hidden argument in this bill
is that immigrants may ``infiltrate'' our voting system. Legal
immigrants who have successfully navigated the citizenship maze are
unlikely to draw the attention of the authorities by attempting to
register incorrectly. Similarly, undocumented immigrants are even less
likely to risk deportation just to influence an election.
If for no other reason than after a major disaster be it earthquakes,
fires, floods or hurricanes, we must all understand how vulnerable our
system is. Families fleeing the hurricanes and fires suffered loss of
property that included lost documents. Compounding this was
[[Page H657]]
the devastation of the region, which virtually shut down civil services
in the area. For example, New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina
were scattered across 44 states. These uprooted citizens had difficulty
registering and voting both with absentee ballots and at satellite
voting stations. As a result, those elections took place fully 8 months
after the disaster, and it required the efforts of non-profits, such as
the NAACP, to ensure that voters had the access they are
constitutionally guaranteed.
We need to address the election fraud that we know occurring, such as
voting machine integrity and poll volunteer training and competence.
After every election that occurs in this country, we have solid
documented evidence of voting inconsistencies and errors. In 2004, in
New Mexico, malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly
register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. 1 million
ballots nationwide were flawed by faulty voting equipment--roughly one
for every 100 cast.
Those who face the most significant barriers are not only the poor,
minorities, and rural populations. 1.5 million college students, whose
addresses change often, and the elderly, will also have difficulty
providing documentation.
In fact, newly married individuals face significant barriers to
completing a change in surname. For instance, it can take 6-8 weeks to
receive the marriage certificate in the mail, another two weeks (and a
full day waiting in line) to get the new Social Security card, and
finally three-four weeks to get the new driver's license. There is a
significant possibility that this bill will also prohibit newlyweds
from voting if they are married within three months of Election Day.
The right to vote is a critical and sacred constitutionally protected
civil right. To challenge this is to erode our democracy, challenge
justice, and mock our moral standing. I urge my colleagues to join me
in dismissing this crippling legislation, and pursue effective
solutions to the real problems of election fraud and error. We cannot
let the rhetoric of an election year destroy a fundamental right upon
which we have established liberty and freedom.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Scott, and Ms. Jackson Lee, for their contributions.
We have no further requests for time. Under those circumstances, I
yield back the balance of my time.
____________________