[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 29 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1000-S1001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in 2005, I was honored to join 
Congressman John Lewis on a trip to Selma, AL, for a ceremonial walk 
over the Edmund Pettus Bridge to mark the 40th anniversary of what has 
come to be known as ``Bloody Sunday.''
  In March of 1965, Congressman Lewis, Rev. Hosea Williams, and 600 
other brave civil rights activists led a voting rights march over that 
bridge.
  These courageous men, women, and children were marching for civil 
rights and voting rights. All they would receive that day, however, 
were beatings and bruises from police batons as they were turned back 
and chased down by State troopers.
  A few days after ``Bloody Sunday,'' President Johnson addressed the 
Nation and called on the House and the Senate to pass the Voting Rights 
Act.
  Shortly thereafter, the Voting Rights Act was signed into law, 
guaranteeing that the fundamental right to vote would never again be 
canceled out by clever schemes--like poll taxes and literacy tests--
devised to keep African Americans from voting.
  The Voting Rights Act is the cornerstone of the civil rights movement 
and one of the most effective laws on the books when it comes to 
protecting the right to vote for all Americans.
  On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Shelby County 
v. Holder, a case challenging the constitutionality of section 5, which 
is the very heart of the Voting Rights Act.
  That section requires jurisdictions in all or part of 16 States with 
a history of discrimination to get approval from the Department of 
Justice or a Federal court before making any changes to congressional 
districts or voting procedures.
  This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has heard a 
challenge to the Voting Rights Act. Though it has been subject to four 
prior Supreme Court challenges, the Voting Rights Act has always 
emerged intact and on sound legal and constitutional ground.
  Each of the four times that the Voting Rights Act has been 
reauthorized--in 1970, 1975, 1982, and most recently in 2006--Congress 
has done so with the broad bipartisan support and overwhelming 
majorities that are all too rare these days.
  That is because protecting the right to vote should not be a partisan 
prerogative. It is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is a 
fundamental right for every eligible voter, and it is a core value of 
our American democracy.
  In 2006, the House of Representatives voted 390 to 33 in favor of 
reauthorizing the law. The Senate voted unanimously, 98 to 0, to 
reauthorize the law. And the final bill was signed into law by 
President George W. Bush.
  There was good reason for this bipartisan support for reauthorizing 
the Voting Rights Act. Congress developed an extensive record, holding 
21 hearings, reviewing more than 15,000 pages in the Congressional 
Record, and hearing from more than 90 witnesses about the need to 
reauthorize the law.
  Conservative Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner is one example. 
Congressman Sensenbrenner was the chairman of the House Judiciary 
Committee when Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act. He strongly 
believes that section 5 is constitutional, and he has filed a brief 
asking the Supreme Court to uphold the law.
  My hope is that the Supreme Court will look at the extensive evidence 
Congress reviewed in 2006 and defer to the judgment of an overwhelming 
majority of the House and a unanimous Senate.
  The Court should affirm the constitutionality of this critical tool 
for protecting the right to vote.
  We all acknowledge the progress that our great country has made on 
civil rights and voting rights issues. The current occupant of 1600 
Pennsylvania Ave., is a symbol and timely reminder that our Nation has 
indeed grown to be more perfect--and more inclusive in many ways--than 
just a few generations ago.
  We are not yet, however, a perfect union. And some of the 
jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act have both a demonstrated 
history and a contemporary record of implementing discriminatory 
restrictions on voting.
  The Voting Rights Act has been essential in securing the progress we 
have made as a nation over the last five decades.
  And as my Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights 
and Human Rights found during a series of hearings last Congress, the 
Voting Rights Act remains a relevant and critical tool in protecting 
the right to vote.

[[Page S1001]]

  After a careful analysis of new voter ID laws in Texas and South 
Carolina, the Department of Justice used its authority under section 5 
of the Voting Rights Act to object to the implementation of new photo 
identification requirements.
  In Texas, according to the State's own data, more than 790,000 
registered voters did not have the ID required to vote under the new 
Texas law.
  That law would have had a disproportionate impact on Latino voters 
because 38.2 percent of registered Hispanic voters did not have the 
type of ID required by the law.
  In South Carolina, the State's own data indicated that almost 240,000 
registered voters did not have the identification required to vote 
under the State's new law.
  That included 10 percent of all registered minorities in South 
Carolina who would not be able to vote under the new law.
  That is more than 1 million registered voters who would have been 
turned away from the polls in Texas and South Carolina if the 
Department of Justice did not have the authority to object to those 
photo identification laws under the Voting Rights Act.
  Opponents of the Voting Rights Act claim that some of the 
jurisdictions covered by the law should no longer be subject to it.
  They rarely mention, however, that the Voting Rights Act itself 
contains a provision allowing jurisdictions to ``bail out'' or be 
excused from coverage under the law if they demonstrate compliance with 
the law for the previous 10 years.
  In 2006, the Supreme Court clarified and expanded this bailout 
provision.
  As a result, more than 190 jurisdictions have bailed out of coverage 
under the Voting Rights Act. The fact that so many jurisdictions have 
been excused from coverage under the law proves two very important 
points.
  First, the Voting Rights Act is having its intended effect. States 
and localities that previously had a record of discriminating against 
minority voters are no longer doing so thanks to the scrutiny of the 
Voting Rights Act.
  Second, the Voting Rights Act is not over-inclusive. Jurisdictions 
that can prove they are not discriminating--over a reasonable period of 
time--will be excused from coverage under the law.
  The Voting Rights Act is not about who wins an election. It is not 
about political advantage. It is about ensuring that every eligible 
American can vote and that their vote will be counted.
  As long as there continues to be evidence that some people are being 
denied the right to vote, we have an obligation to remedy that problem.
  The Voting Rights Act has done its job of protecting the right to 
vote for almost 50 years. Congress did its job in 2006 by developing an 
extensive record and reauthorizing the law in an overwhelming and 
bipartisan manner.
  It is my hope the Supreme Court will now do its job and affirm the 
constitutionality of this critical law.

                          ____________________