[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 29 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E228-E229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER (VOTING RIGHTS ACT) BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. YVETTE D. CLARKE

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 28, 2013

  Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Speaker, the struggle for equality and justice 
through the Civil Rights Movement would not have attained its level of 
success without dedicated leaders such as Rosa Parks, Rev. Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr., Rev Jesse Jackson Sr., and my colleague, 
Representative John Lewis who put their lives on the line to make it so
  So here we are, nearly 50 years after the Voting Rights Act was 
signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Supreme Court heard 
Shelby County v. Holder, the outcome of which holds the possibility of 
setting our nation back centuries.
  Much of the debate regarding Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has 
been focused on the plight of the south and relevance to the southern 
perspective as it should. We are all too aware of the blood that was 
shed to demand basic human, racial equality. However, I stand here 
today in solidarity with my colleagues to lend a voice and perspective 
to this debate of Section 5 covered areas outside of Southern States. 
When most people think of Brooklyn, New York, a progressive mentality 
comes to mind. However, Brooklyn is likewise a Section 5 covered 
jurisdiction and historically ``Brooklynites'' have encountered voter 
discrimination tactics that has resulted in Kings County being 
subjected to the requirements of Section 5's preclearance rules and 
provisions.
  In 1921, New York State enacted an English-only literacy test that 
remained on the books through the 1960s. During this time, New York 
State experienced a ``Great Migration'' from the South, as well as, 
from Puerto Rico and other areas of Latino decent. Most of these 
migrants lived in communities such as Harlem in Manhattan, the South 
Bronx, and the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn. At that time, 
New York State law included a literacy test which proved difficult, if 
not impossible for people with educational or language barriers. 
Coincidentally, there were three counties in New York City with low 
voter turnout in the 1968 elections, due in large part to the fact that 
these literacy tests could not be passed. This ultimately became the 
reason why jurisdictions for Section 5 preclearance were extended to 
specific counties in New York, in particular, Brooklyn, New York.
  On May 10, 1967, a federal court ruled that the hodgepodge of 
gerrymandered congressional districts that snaked in and out of 
Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn were unconstitutional, in that they 
operated ``to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or 
political elements of the voting population, violated the recently 
passed Voting Rights Act and deprived one of the nation's largest and 
densest African-American communities the right to adequate 
representation.

[[Page E229]]

  Andrew W. Cooper, a community activist, was the impetus for this 
historic change. A year after the Voting Rights Act became law he sued 
New York State officials in a case called Cooper v. Power. The ensuing 
legal battle led to the redrawing of the now historically famous 12th 
Congressional District of New York (the district was later 
reapportioned to parts of the 11th District and now 9th Congressional 
District).
  The ruling set in motion a monumental shift in voting rights in New 
York and beyond, redefining political representation for people of 
color. It was built on the foundation of civil rights gains made in the 
south and helped push the agenda for Voting Rights nationwide.
  As a woman of color, a witness to the re-election of our nation's 
first Black President, and the U.S. Representative for the Ninth 
Congressional District, which is a majority-minority district covered 
under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, I am deeply concerned by the 
potential ramifications of this case and the impact of its ruling on 
people of color and their right to vote.
  Most recently a Brooklyn elected official wrote an editorial 
questioning the validity and significance of Brooklyn's classification 
as a Section 5 covered jurisdiction. Brooklyn NY has one of the largest 
concentrations of people of color in the nation. It is also worth 
noting that another elected official from Brooklyn appeared in ``Black 
face'', just this Sunday. These types of hostile inquiries and acts 
erode the fabric of American democracy and speak to the heart of why 
Section 5 preclearance is vital to the realization of justice and 
equality.
  In many areas, racially polarized voting and the intent to 
disenfranchise Black voters demonstrate that the requirements of 
Section Five remain crucial to the basic function of our democracy.
  The 9th Congressional district of New York, which I presently 
represent, was birthed in 1965 when Andrew Cooper brought suit under 
the Voting Rights Act against racial gerrymandering and in response to 
widespread and prolific discriminatory voting practices in Brooklyn. 
This suit gave birth to New York's 12th Congressional district and the 
election in 1968 of Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman ever 
elected to the U.S. Congress to whom I have the distinct honor and 
privilege of succeeding almost 40 years later.
  Even in the years after the formation of the Congressional Black 
Caucus in 1971, people of color remain underrepresented at every level 
of elected offices.
  These are just a few examples of why Section 5, and in particular its 
preclearance clauses, are essential to ensure that changes to voting 
rules and practices do not result in voter suppression, retrogression, 
and discrimination.
  Without the existence of majority-minority districts, the voices of 
millions of Americans will be excluded from Capitol Hill; and their 
perspectives would not inform public debate. Without Section 5 covered 
districts, our democracy would exist in form, but not in fact.
  When I was elected to Congress in 2006, and after Congress had just 
reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, I would never have thought that 
today we would be re-litigating issues that I believed were long since 
settled and resolved.
  It took our nation over 200 years to obtain the victories of the 
Civil Rights Movement, now less than 50 years after the Voting Rights 
Act was signed into law are we truly to be believe that systemic racial 
discrimination and voter suppression has ended?, I think not!
  These advancements in the struggle for equality, permitting All 
Americans to freely exercise their right to vote will take more than a 
lifetime to protect and preserve. Jurists of the Supreme Court, a word 
of advice- If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

                          ____________________