[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S443-S444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Coons):
  S. 1945. A bill to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the 
criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are 
subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, almost five decades ago, President Lyndon 
Johnson signed the original Voting Rights Act into law. At the signing, 
he spoke eloquently about the central purpose of the law. He said:

       This act flows from a clear and simple wrong. Its only 
     purpose is to right that wrong. Millions of Americans are 
     denied the right to vote because of their color. This law 
     will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no 
     American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which 
     no American, true to our principles, can deny.

  A lot has changed since 1965 and much progress has been made, but 7 
years ago the Senate and House examined whether racial discrimination 
in voting was still a problem that required a Federal solution. After a 
long series of hearings in both Chambers and based upon a mountain of 
evidence,

[[Page S444]]

Democrats and Republicans came together to conclude that racial 
discrimination in voting is still a problem and the protections that 
voters have had under the Voting Rights Act were still needed. Yet, 
last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that struck at 
the heart of the Voting Rights Act when it held that the coverage 
provision of section 5 was unconstitutional because it was not 
sufficiently based on current conditions. In doing so, the Court made 
clear that Congress could update the law to reinstitute the protections 
of section 5 coverage if it were based on more recent conduct.
  Today, I am pleased to announce that we are responding to the Court's 
decision by introducing a bill that helps reinvigorate the most vital 
protections of the act. Through months of cooperation, negotiation, and 
compromise, Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Conyers and I have agreed on 
a bipartisan and bicameral proposal to restore the protections of the 
Voting Rights Act that were weakened by the Supreme Court's decision 
last summer. Our sole focus throughout this entire process was to 
ensure that no American would be denied their constitutional right to 
vote because of discrimination on the basis of race or color. We 
believe that this is a strong bipartisan bill that accomplishes this 
goal and that every Member of Congress can support.
  Under our bipartisan bill, all States and jurisdictions are eligible 
for section 5 protections under a new coverage formula, which is based 
on repeated voting rights violations in the last 15 years. This 
coverage provision is based solely on a State's or local jurisdiction's 
recent voting rights record. Significantly, the 15-year period 
``rolls'' or continuously moves to keep up with ``current conditions,'' 
as the Supreme Court stated should be a basis for any coverage 
provision. If a State that is covered establishes a clean record moving 
forward, it will fall out of coverage. In addition, the existing 
bailout provision would still be available for States or jurisdictions 
that can establish that they had a clean record in a 10-year span. 
These provisions ensure that the coverage provision is not over-
inclusive because jurisdictions that have not repeatedly violated the 
voting rights of its constituents can come out from under preclearance 
requirements.
  Our bill would also improve the Voting Rights Act to allow our 
Federal courts to bail-in the worst actors for preclearance. Current 
law permits States or jurisdictions to be bailed in only for 
intentional voting rights violations, but to ensure that the worst 
discrimination in voting is captured, the bill would amend the act to 
allow States or jurisdictions to be bailed in for results-based 
violations, where the effect of a particular voting measure is to deny 
an individual his or her right to vote.
  In recognition that voters need to be aware of changes in laws 
affecting their right to vote, the bill provides for greater 
transparency in elections. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, as Justice 
Brandeis once observed, and in this instance, the additional sunlight 
will protect voters from discrimination. The transparency provisions 
provide for public notice and information in three areas. The first 
part requires public notice of late breaking changes in Federal 
elections. The second part requires information on polling place 
resource allocation for Federal elections. The third part requires 
information on changes to electoral districts, including demographic 
information, to prevent racial gerrymandering, impermissible 
redistricting, and infringement on minority voters. The last part 
requires this information for Federal, State, and local elections 
because the most impermissible conduct oftentimes occurs in State and 
local elections.
  Finally, our bill revises the preliminary injunction standard for 
voting rights actions. The principle behind this part of the proposal 
is the recognition that when voting rights are at stake, obtaining 
relief after the election has already concluded is too late to 
vindicate the individuals' voting rights. We recognize that there will 
be cases where there is a special need for immediate, preliminary 
relief where the plaintiff can establish that the voting measure is 
likely to be discriminatory.
  This proposal is a bipartisan effort to provide a narrow fix to 
address the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision to ensure that all 
Americans are protected from racial discrimination in voting. I am 
confident and hopeful that the Congress can work together as a body--
not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans--to ensure that we 
root out all voter discrimination with a strong and reinvigorated 
Voting Rights Act.
  I am confident we can do this because protecting voting rights has 
always been a bipartisan effort. In 1965 President Johnson signed the 
Voting Rights Act into law. That law was passed with overwhelming 
bipartisan support in Congress. In the Senate the vote was 79 to 18. In 
the House the vote was 328 to 74. In the four times since it was 
reauthorized, the support for the law has only increased. In fact, when 
President George W. Bush signed the most recent reauthorization in 
2006, the vote in the Senate was 98 to 0 and the vote in the House was 
390 to 33. Too often there is gridlock in Congress, but when it comes 
to the Voting Rights Act, there is almost unanimous agreement on the 
principle that no American should be denied his or her right to vote or 
to participate in our democracy.
  My hope is that we can continue this legacy of bipartisanship on the 
issue of voting rights. As we prepare to celebrate Martin Luther King, 
Jr. Day on Monday, we should remember the words of Dr. King, who, in a 
powerful speech about the right to vote, said:

       So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the 
     right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my 
     mind--it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic 
     citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact--I can 
     only submit to the edict of others. So our most urgent 
     request to the president of the United States and every 
     member of Congress is to give us the right to vote.

  I believe that the bipartisan bill we are introducing today honors 
the spirit of those words. I thank Senators Durbin and Coons for 
working with me and I look forward to working with all Senators on this 
important legislation.
                                 ______