[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5789-H5798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOTING RIGHTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
General Leave
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on the subject of my Special
Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss the
importance of voting rights for all Americans across this country.
With less than 50 days before Americans go to the polls to elect our
next President and other elected officials, we are still faced with the
harsh reality that this will be the first election in 50 years where
Americans will not have the full protections of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965.
Today's Special Order hour is on behalf of the House Democratic
Outreach and Engagement Task Force. I want to thank Assistant Leader
Clyburn for his leadership on the task force and all of the members of
the task force as we work together to make sure that we engage all
Americans on the importance of voting. In fact, one of the first things
the task force did was to host a series of voting rights forums across
this Nation to put together a report that shows modern-day barriers to
voting still exist.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed not only by legislation but,
Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed with the blood,
sweat, and tears of so many Americans. In fact, all of us know of the
courageous sacrifices of our very own John Lewis, but there were so
many known and unknown foot soldiers that made it possible for America
to live up to its ideals of democracy and justice for all.
As a daughter of Selma, Alabama, I am painfully aware that the
injustices suffered on the Edmund Pettus Bridge 50 years ago have not
been fully vindicated.
Although we no longer are required to count how many marbles are in a
jar or recite how many counties there are in the State of Alabama, my
proposition to you, Mr. Speaker, is that modern-day barriers to voting
still exist. Those barriers may not be as overt as they were 50 years
ago, but, Mr. Speaker, they are no less stained. They are no less
important as those other barriers were.
I have seen example after example, as the Representative of Alabama's
Seventh Congressional District, of the modern-day barriers that exist
to voting.
Since the Supreme Court struck down critical parts of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 in the Shelby County v. Holder decision, so many
Members have taken to the floor--mostly Democrats--day after day, week
after week, month after month, year after year, urging our Republican
colleagues to work with us to restore the essential protections of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Several of my Democratic colleagues, including myself, have hosted
voting rights forums across this country to highlight the continued
need for restoring the Voting Rights Act. Members have also introduced
legislation. I, for one, am quite proud of the Voting Rights
Advancement Act, a bill that I sponsored, along with several other
Members of the House, including Representative Linda T. Sanchez and
Representative Judy Chu. Our bill, H.R. 2867, has over 187 cosponsors,
Mr. Speaker.
{time} 2045
It actually answers the Supreme Court's challenge to come up with a
modern-day formula by which to have preclearance provisions in the
Voting Rights Act.
I think it is so important, Mr. Speaker, and I know that so many will
agree, that we make sure that we find these pernicious examples of
restraining people's rights to vote on the front end because, after
all, Mr. Speaker, once the elections have happened, you can't unring
that bell.
So the beauty of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was that it allowed
preemptive efforts to stop discrimination in voting. Therefore, any
changes in voting practices in the covered States had to be precleared
by the Justice Department or by the D.C. Court of Appeals. This was
quite important.
I have to tell you that what the Shelby decision did was it struck
down that key provision, section 4, which gave the covered States and
provided the formula by which we know which States would be covered.
Therefore, in the Shelby decision, the Supreme Court really issued a
challenge to Congress to come up with a modern-day formula.
It was the Supreme Court who said that we can't punish States like
Alabama, the State from which I hail, and other southern States, for
what happened 50 years ago. Congress must come up with a modern-day
formula that talks about current efforts to restrict the right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done in the Voting Rights
Advancement Act of 2015. I want you to know that, of the 187 sponsors
we currently have, not one Republican has signed on.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the House of Representatives when
voting rights becomes a partisan issue. Voting rights is an American
issue. It is neither red nor blue but, rather, it is what our founding
fathers fought for, drafted, and ensured that all Americans have a
right, a fundamental right, to exercise that right to vote. After all,
the integrity of our democracy depends upon every eligible voter being
able to vote.
Most recently, I was privileged to also join with my colleagues and
my fellow House Members, Representative Mark Veasey of Texas and
Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, and other Members of Congress,
to launch the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus. The Caucus is
committed to restoring the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to
[[Page H5790]]
its original state and restoring the vote to all suppressed voices in
this Nation.
I want to commend my fellow colleagues, Representatives Veasey and
Scott, for their visionary leadership in starting this Caucus. I am
honored to be a co-chair of the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, and
we will take as our charge to make sure that we fully restore all of
the protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
In spite of these continued efforts, Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening
to see that State after State, including my own State, after the Shelby
decision, instituted photo ID laws, voter-restrictive photo ID laws.
So many of my colleagues, they say: Well, what is so restrictive
about requiring a photo ID? After all, you need a photo ID in order to
get on a plane or to get your passport.
But I say to all of my colleagues who question the restrictive nature
of photo IDs that not all Americans fly, not all Americans have a
passport, but all Americans who are eligible have the fundamental right
to vote. And we, the elected Representatives on behalf of these
Americans, must not impede that most fundamental right.
We should be looking at ways that we can encourage voting not
discourage voting. After all, the fundamental foundation of our
democracy is the right to vote.
So I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite important that we,
in this House, do what so many of our predecessors have done and
restore full protections on the right to vote.
I wish I were alive when Lyndon Johnson signed the voting rights into
law. But I can tell you that there were no more fundamental seminal
pieces of legislation that passed this omniscient House than the right
to vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965
are still some of the most seminal pieces of legislation that this body
has ever passed.
And I say to you, Mr. Speaker: How can we, today, 50 years since the
passage--53 years, to be exact--how can we stand on the cusp of
electing another President and, for the first time in those 50 years,
not have the full protections of the Voting Rights Act?
It is, indeed, a sad day. But I know that this body will and should
do the people's work. And the people's work is to allow all Americans
who qualify, who have registered to vote, who turned 18--these
Americans have the right to vote.
I would love it if this body would pass an automatic voter
registration bill. I have signed on to such a bill. But those bills
don't get a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, and I am not sure why,
Mr. Speaker, because nothing is more fundamental than to have every
American, when they reach that certain age of 18, and they go and get
their driver's license, be automatically registered to vote.
We are not talking about protecting one class of voters against
another class of voters. We are talking about protecting that
fundamental right to vote for all Americans. Nothing seems more
American and democratic than that.
The sad reality is that old battles have become new again, and so
many States have now really taken the Shelby decision and allowed
themselves to put up restrictive laws. We are reminded that they are
restrictive laws by the judicial system.
Most recently, the Fourth Circuit overturned the North Carolina photo
ID law, in which they said, point blank, that they were targeting--that
that voter ID law targeted and discriminated against African American
voters. They said that it did so with precision, Mr. Speaker.
There is a fallacy that goes around that says that there is voter
fraud rampant in America. Well, I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that
voter fraud does not exist in the volumes by which Americans think they
do. A very recent poll by The Washington Post-ABC came out and said
that over 50 percent of Americans believe that there is voter fraud.
Well, I will have you know, Mr. Speaker, that study after study,
including that by the Brennan Center, have shown that there are very
few cases of voter fraud. In fact, their study, between the years of
2000 and 2014, a 14-year period, only showed 31 cases of voter
impersonation. And I want you to know that many of those were, in fact,
errors, errors in folks' names, when the III or the Junior of a
person's name was confused with the Senior of that same name.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that voter fraud is not rampant, so I am
not really sure why States like Alabama have instituted these photo ID
laws. My State not only instituted a photo ID law but, last summer, my
State, due to ``budgetary reasons,'' closed down more than 31 DMVs,
mostly in areas that were disproportionately African American.
So I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, if photo IDs are required, and the
most popular form of the photo ID is a driver's license, how can that
very State also close down opportunities, foreclosing opportunities for
those citizens of that State to get a photo ID?
My State also says that that photo ID is free. Well, I submit to you,
Mr. Speaker, that they may say it is free and, in fact, it is free if
you can come along on those rare days in which the mobile goes through
your city.
But I want you to know that many of my constituents, many of whom
were born in rural Alabama, many of whom were born over 80 years ago by
midwife, those constituents don't have birth certificates. And those
that do, well, in order to acquire a birth certificate, that costs
money. You have to still be able to produce a birth certificate in
order to get this ``free'' ID from the State of Alabama. So I submit to
you that it is not free. I also submit to you that it is unfair that we
put up such barriers.
I am humbled every year by the pilgrimage that John Lewis takes with
many of the Members of Congress in this body. Every year, for the past
18 years, he has taken a pilgrimage through my district. He goes back
in time and allows those Members who travel with him to actually
retrace his footsteps 50-plus years ago. We go to Birmingham, we go to
Montgomery, and we end up, on that Sunday, reenacting Bloody Sunday,
that moment in history, that seminal moment in history, in which he was
bludgeoned on Edmund Pettus Bridge for the simple right to vote.
And I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it does not go unnoticed by me,
as I drive across the Edmund Pettus Bridge each time I go home to Selma
to visit my parents, the sacrifices that ordinary Americans did in
order to achieve what ultimately was an extraordinary feat.
When you think of the fact that a young John Lewis, who was in
college at the time, and so many who were out there marching for the
right to vote were children, and when you think about the fact that
ordinary Americans, collectively working together, achieved this
extraordinary feat, it makes you realize how fragile the right to vote
really is.
I don't know how any of us can join hands with John Lewis and walk
across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and not understand how important it is
to rededicate ourselves to the fight that he once led. We, as elected
Representatives of this great Nation, owe it to our own constituents to
make sure that every eligible American has the right to vote.
I have to tell you that one of the most moving opportunities for me,
as a Member of Congress, was in 2015, when I got a chance to be in my
hometown and to welcome over 100 Members of Congress, Republicans and
Democrats, two Presidents, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, to my
hometown. It was to celebrate America's promise, a promise that became
reality through the sacrifice, blood, sweat, and tears of average
Americans.
We all came on that beautiful day, March 7, 2015. It was glorious,
but it was a kumbaya moment in time. We owe more to the sacrifices of
those foot soldiers like John Lewis than a gold medal. Although, I was
proud to put forth that bill, and even prouder to be able to bestow the
gold medal to those foot soldiers that did march in the Selma-to-
Montgomery March. It was a great day.
But, Mr. Speaker, we came back to this body, to this House of
Representatives, and we did absolutely nothing to restore the Voting
Rights Act of 1965. There have been several bills that have come forth.
There has been the Voting Rights Amendment Act that had bipartisan
support, both from Congressman Conyers and from Congressman
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. That bill didn't get more than 30
cosponsors.
[[Page H5791]]
Then, of course, there is my bill, the Voting Rights Advancement Act
of 2015, which has over 187 sponsors.
We have to meet in the middle, Mr. Speaker, because voting rights are
so essential. And on this, less than 50 days before we have a
Presidential election, it is simply unacceptable that we go without the
full protections of the Voting Rights Act.
What do I mean by that? What is at stake really by not having those
full protections?
Well, we witnessed, in the primary in Arizona in Maricopa County--
this was a county that was covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
but, because of the Shelby decision, there was no more preclearance.
And so, this county in Arizona went from a height of 400 polling
stations down--that was in 2012--down to 60 polling stations in 2016.
There were long lines, Mr. Speaker, in Maricopa County. People had to
wait hours for the right to vote.
I would venture to guess, had the Shelby decision not occurred, and
we had the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that
there would be no way that Maricopa County, Arizona, would have been
able to change those polling stations and reduce the number of the
polling stations to 60 from 400 had there been preclearance.
{time} 2100
So what is at stake really is the integrity of our democracy. What is
at stake is the fact that we in America should not have to wait hours
to vote. We in America should not have to produce documents that we do
not have to vote. I think it is ironic that in many of these States you
can present a gun permit license with a photo and be able to vote, but
you can't produce a student ID from a State university and vote.
I believe that what is at stake right now is the integrity of our
democracy, and that all of us should be outraged if even one person is
denied the right to vote. This is a very important, very important
issue that I, again, submit to you is neither Republican nor Democrat.
It is truly bipartisan, and that is the right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), my
colleague.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, Congresswoman
Sewell, for organizing this very important Special Order hour today to
talk about something that is really timely, especially with elections
coming up. I want to be able to stand here today with my colleagues to
bring awareness to the injustice--the injustices really--that are
oppressing the most vulnerable members of our democracy.
I want to start with some history from the 1960s, and then some more
recent history. As you know, in 1965, the Voting Rights Act sought to
ensure that voters would never again face intimidation or unnecessary
obstacles in exercising their right to vote as American citizens. But
in 2013, Shelby County v. Holder gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act and
set in motion what many feared: the subjection of minorities, seniors,
and low-income Americans to unfair, punitive barriers that make it hard
for them to vote--make it hard for people to exercise their very basic
right as an American citizen.
As a native of Texas representing the Dallas and Fort Worth area, I
have seen firsthand the effects of these suppressive laws that have
been put in place in 33 States since the Supreme Court issued in Shelby
County v. Holder. Some of the tactics in Texas that were used--and you
heard Representative Sewell talk about it a little bit earlier. If you
have a license--a school ID from Texas A&M University or the University
of Texas or Prairie View A&M or Texas Southern University, any of our
State universities, these are the same IDs that students can use. Let's
say they are on campus and they are doing something they are not
supposed to do, they can use those IDs to identify themselves to law
enforcement authorities on the campuses there; but if they were to try
to come home and use that ID, they would be denied the right to vote.
But, again, if you are the owner of a handgun and you have a concealed
handgun license, you can use that particular ID to vote. It is almost
unfair. You can see how everything is stacked against the everyday
voters.
With the requirement that a photo ID be used to vote, some
individuals without an ID had to travel great distances to get them or
struggled to pay for the supporting documents they needed in order to
get the ID to vote. You heard Representative Sewell talk about that a
little bit earlier.
Let me give you an example of that. In Texas we have 254 counties.
Everybody knows that Texas is a big State. Some of those counties don't
even have driver's license centers or ID centers where people can get
their voter ID cards or their driver's license or their State ID or the
other documentation that is needed to be able to vote. So that is why I
got involved as the lead plaintiff in Veasey v. Abbott, which was the
voter ID case, to overturn the law.
Our case has been heard before three--literally three--Federal
courts, including what is considered the most conservative appellate
court in the entire country, which is the Fifth Circuit. In July 2016,
the full Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas voters. That ought to
tell you something that the Fifth Circuit was even like, hey, this
thing has some real, real problems.
That same month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
struck down North Carolina's restrictive voting laws, and the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin invalidated
portions of their voting law there that was designed to prevent
individuals from casting their right to vote.
The courts have found what we have always known to be true, and that
is that these restrictive voter ID laws intentionally discriminate
against minority voters and disenfranchise eligible American voters.
These victories are a few of the major victories, but we have also
had victories in non-Southern States. It is mentioned that it is the
Southern States where a lot of these issues have historically been a
problem, but we know that even outside of the South there have been
issues--Ohio, Kansas, and Michigan--and so far the courts continue to
rule in the favor of the voter. I hope they will continue to do so in
the future.
But while we see these victories, we also continue to face
challenges. Some of you recently have heard that Judge Ramos in the
Texas case, who issued the interim voting rules in the Texas case, had
to actually order the attorney general, the Governor, and the secretary
of state to stop sending out misleading and confusing election
materials to try to confuse people about the voter ID ruling.
That worries me a lot because what is that saying is going to happen
to this upcoming election in November in 2016? Are we getting a sneak
preview of some of the dirty tricks that may take place around the
country?
The fact that a Federal judge issued these guidelines and State
officials tried to send out misleading information from a Federal judge
is scary. Those are dirty tricks that we have to watch out for in this
November 2016 election.
We know that the attorney general, because he said so, is going to
appeal this case to the Supreme Court. But until we see an end to
barriers to voting and the distribution of misinformation to discourage
eligible citizens from casting their ballots, we will not stop
fighting. Every day, my colleagues and I, led by the Democratic
Outreach and Engagement Task Force and the Congressional Voting Rights
Caucus, will continue to fight to have these suppressive laws
invalidated. Even in the face of lengthy court battles, we welcome the
challenge because it means we have to protect the right to vote.
One of the things that I did to continue to shed light on this issue
is I actually introduced a resolution last week to designate September
as National Voting Rights Month. This year, Americans will cast their
ballots in one of the most important general elections that this
country has ever seen. The designation of September as National Voting
Rights Month will serve to assist in spreading information and
awareness about voter registration dates and voting dates, early
voting, polling place locations, how to maintain voter rolls, and some
of the suppressive tactics that are being used. We want to inform
people about that as well because it would be an affront,
Representative Sewell, to our predecessors to allow suppressive tactics
to deny Americans the right that many have fought and died for.
[[Page H5792]]
That is why Congress must continue to lead the charge in restoring
the right for all Americans to vote by fixing the Voting Rights Act and
by encouraging participation in, again, what is our most sacred right
as Americans, and that is the right to vote.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Veasey for
his tireless effort not only as a plaintiff in the Texas case
courageously fighting against the injustices against voters, but I want
to also thank the gentleman for his leadership on the Congressional
Voting Rights Caucus and for his participation in tonight's Special
Order hour. We are all with the gentleman in his efforts to make sure
that all Americans have the right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I have said that I introduced a bill called the Voting
Rights Advancement Act. I would like to talk a little bit about the
Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 in an effort to really encourage
the rest of my colleagues here in this august body to join with me in
passing the Voting Rights Advancement Act.
What the Voting Rights Advancement Act does is it provides a modern-
day formula, exactly what the Supreme Court asked of Congress. By
striking down the old formula in the Shelby decision, the Supreme Court
issued a challenge to Congress to come up with a modern-day formula.
That is exactly what we do in this bill. This bill doesn't look back to
1940, 1950 or 1960. Oh, no. This bill looks at 1990 going forward. It
is a 25-year lookback. If a State has had five or more statewide
violations, then it will be a covered State. So it is a modern-day
formula looking at any incidents of discriminatory practices since 1990
going forward.
Mr. Speaker, you should not be surprised that even in looking at
modern-day barriers or instituting this modern-day formula that you
would still have 13 States that have had five or more statewide
violations in the last 26 years. Those States include Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Arizona, California, New York, and Virginia. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it
includes Arizona, it includes California and New York, not just Deep
South Southern States.
In the last 26 years, these States have had five or more statewide
violations of voting rights. I have to tell you that this goes to show
you that there is a need for us to have continued full protections of
the Voting Rights Act. There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that we can only
rely on those lawsuits on section 2 which occur after the election has
occurred. We need the efforts to be able to stop the discriminatory
practices before they have the discriminatory effect. That is exactly
what the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does and what the Voting Rights
Advancement Act, H.R. 2867, would do. It would put teeth back into the
preclearance provision.
Now, we call it the Voting Rights Advancement Act because it also
talks about discriminatory effects and practices on tribal lands. Back
in 1965, we didn't protect tribal lands and the right to vote of those
Americans. It is critically important that we modernize the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 and make sure that we cover all Americans, including
those who live in tribal lands.
The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 would allow Federal courts
to immediately halt questionable voting practices until a final ruling
is made. This provision would recognize that, when voting rights are at
stake, prohibiting a discriminatory practice after the election has
concluded is too late to truly protect voter rights.
This bill would also give the Attorney General authority to request
that Federal observers be present anywhere in the country where
discriminatory voting practices pose a serious threat. This bill would
also increase transparency by requiring reasonable public notice for
voting changes.
So, Mr. Speaker, if this bill had been in effect during the primary
in Arizona, there would be no way that the election officials in
Maricopa County, Arizona, would have been able to shrink the size of
the number of polling stations--the populations stood the same or grew,
and yet they shrunk the number of polling stations from 400 in 2012 to
60 in 2016, in 4 years. There is no way that that would have stood. You
cannot tell me that that did not have a discriminatory impact on
voters. Those lines being so long, I can't tell you--we will never know
how many people got discouraged, how many working mothers or working
family parents had to leave the line in order to go pick up their
children or be able to provide for their family. We don't know how many
people didn't get the chance to vote.
To me, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the integrity of the democracy
that is being questioned by not having the full protections of the
Voting Rights Act.
So I ask my colleagues to join me and the 187 other cosponsors of the
Voting Rights Advancement Act and let us put teeth back into the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 by coming up and approving, passing, this modern-day
formula. I believe that a lookback of 1990 going forward is ample
evidence of voter discrimination and discriminatory practices and that
States that have had five or more statewide violations should be a
covered State.
{time} 2115
This bill would allow them to be a covered State for 10 years. Now,
obviously, during this 10-year period, if the State remedies itself, it
can no longer be a covered State. There are ample provisions to allow
for States to be opted in and opted out. I think that what, ultimately,
we all want is that the full integrity of our democratic process be
preserved, and that is exactly what would happen with this Voting
Rights Advancement Act.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record witness testimony from the
voting rights townhall hosted by Representatives Jeffries, Meng, and
Velazquez in New York.
[From LatinoJustice]
Testimony of Juan Cartagena President & General Counsel LatinoJustice
PRLDEF on Fragile at 50: The Urgent Need To Strengthen and Restore the
Voting Rights Act
Good morning Congresswoman Velazquez, Congressman Jeffries,
and Congresswoman Meng. On behalf of LatinoJustice PRLDEF--
formerly known as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education
Fund--I respectfully submit this testimony at the forum
Fragile at 50: The Urgent Need to Strengthen and Restore the
Voting Rights Act.
My testimony will center on the historical significance of
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the three formerly
covered counties of Bronx, Kings and New York for both
general compliance problems and bilingual assistance
problems.
The Historical Context
The historical foundations of Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act in New York City--a subject that has been a focus
of my previous research and publications, l submit, provides
the context for the Act's salience today.
Two important lessons emanate from this history. The first
is that New York City was in effect, the laboratory of
bilingual voting assistance for language minority citizens in
the entire country--and it all started with Puerto Rican
voters. The second is that Section 5 arguably had its most
direct and prophylactic effects for minority voters as a tool
against discriminatory voting schemes beyond redistricting
plans. I now turn to those two historical episodes.
Section Five's application to three counties in New York
stems directly from the previous application of Section 4(e)
of the Voting Act which is colloquially known as the Puerto
Rican section of the Act. While the VRA was historically and
rightfully aimed at restoring the dignity of the African-
American vote, it was never just black and white, not even in
1965. Section 4(e) was championed in a bipartisan manner by
Senators Robert Kennedy and Jacob Javits. It drew support
from Puerto Rican icons like Herman Badillo, Gilberto Gerena-
Valentin and Irma Vidal Santaella who testified in Congress
against the notion that one can only be a productive and
effective voter in New York only if literate in English.
Their testimony led to Section 4(e) which outlawed any
English-only literacy test that would deny voter registration
to any Puerto Rican who achieved at least a 6th grade
education in Puerto Rico's schools. The remedy was bilingual
voter registration and bilingual ballot access. The
litigation spawned by this law--all of it filed by the Puerto
Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund--set the stage for major
court decisions declaring that English-only election systems
deprived citizens of a meaningful right to vote and were
discriminatory under the VRA. Those decisions, especially
Torres v. Sachs, were used by the NAACP to argue that Section
5 coverage of New York City--previously certified but
exempted by a separate court at the State's urging--should be
reinstated. That argument prevailed and Section 5 became a
reality directly because of the discrimination against Puerto
Rican voters.
The impact of Section 4(e) did not stop there, however.
During the 1975 congressional deliberations to create
bilingual assistance provisions of the Act to cover all
Spanish-language, Asian language and Native American language
voters the House clearly recognized that bilingual voting
structures were both viable and effective.
[[Page H5793]]
They cited New York City as the example that bilingual voting
could not be deemed radical as it had been in place for a
decade under Section 4(e). In sum, Puerto Rican voters
challenged the discriminatory nature of English only systems
and won, to their benefit and the benefit of all other
language minority citizens nationwide.
The second major lesson of Section 5 coverage in New York
City stems from its powerful effect of stemming
discriminatory practices beyond redistricting plans.
Redistricting, continued to be at the heart of the importance
of the VRA in New York. In 1981 the councilmanic
redistricting plan was passed but never precleared as
required by law. This led to multiple suits by black and
Latino voters that resulted in suspending the entire citywide
primary elections just two days before the September election
day. This victory put teeth into Section 5 and forced the
City to justify the fact that they refused to create
additional black and Latino council districts despite major
demographic change. Weeks later the Department of Justice
interposed an objection under Section 5 and the map was
redrawn clearing the way for the eventual majority iof black,
Asian American and Latino council men and women in this
decade. From 1982 through 2006--the year Section 5 was
reauthorized by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in Congress--
additional objections were interposed by the Department of
Justice to discriminatory redistricting plans including a
1991 objection to the NYC City Council plan and a 1992
objection to the NYS Assembly plan.
Section 5 objections also addressed other practices beyond
redistricting including switching the form of voting of
community school board members in 1999; replacing elected
school board members with appointed trustees in 1996; the
creation of additional judgeships for state courts in 1994;
failure to accurately translate names and instructions in the
Chinese language in 1994; and failure to provide appropriate
language assistance to Chinese voters in 1993.
VRA compliance activity was not limited to Section 5 actual
objections in the decades in which the City was covered. The
Department of Justice continuously deployed Federal Observers
to monitor the City for language assistance compliance for
both Spanish and Asian languages. Indeed, from 1985 to 2004
alone 881 Federal Observers were dispatched to ensure
compliance with the VRA. Moreover, Section 5 had a strong
prophylactic effect in the City as measured by the impact of
More Information Request letters issued by the Department of
Justice to the City. These letters often stemmed
discriminatory practices when the City withdrew its request
for preclearance upon receiving the More Information Request
letter--a regular occurrence throughout other Section 5
covered jurisdictions. One study by Luis Fraga and Maria
Ocampo found that in the City alone from 1990 to 2005 113
letters were issued and 53 resulted in the equivalent of
interposing an objection.
The Effects of a Renewed VRA Today
It is clear that the recent episodes of purging voters in
Brooklyn and mis-deployment of Spanish language interpreters
in the Congressional Democratic primaries in Congressman
Rangel's district in Washington Heights would have been
ameliorated if not completely avoided had Section Five been
in effect after the Shelby County decision. The historical
context described above demonstrates that these episodes of
potentially discriminatory practices would have been
addressed by the power of Section Five. Accordingly, its
absence is sorely felt in the City.
I end, however, with an example of the power of Section 5
in New York City in 2014 just months after the Supreme
Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder earlier that year
in June. The scene is a press conference in September 2014 on
the steps of City Hall after the New York City Council voted
to pass the Community Safety Act after then Mayor Bloomberg
had vetoed the measure weeks before. Speaker Quinn was not in
favor of the bill and noted her reservations. After
considerable pressure from the minority members of the
Council she allowed the bill to come to a vote. The
legislation was intended to address some of the worst
features of the notorious Stop & Frisk practices of the New
York Police Department that by the end of the Bloomberg
administration skyrocketed to over 4 million stops,
predominately directed at black and Latino residents of the
City with such a level of ineffectiveness that minimally 86%
of those stopped were never charged with a crime or
violation. The Mayor and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelley
insisted on preserving the practice going so far as painting
a doomsday scenario or rampant violent crime if the practice
were curbed. References to retrogressing to the Dinkins'
administration--another example of Dog Whistle Politics--were
all over the tabloids. The black and Latino members of the
Council knew better. They listened to the voices of the
victims of this abuse, they spearheaded hearings on the
matter, they debated the efficacy and unjustness of the
practice in the tabloids. In short they were being responsive
to the needs of black, Latino and Asian-American voters.
The Council voted that day to overcome the mayor's veto and
enact that portion of the Community Safety Act. It was the
first time in New York City history that the Council overcame
a mayoral veto! The historical significance of the vote was
not lost on me as I commented to the press how critical that
vote became on a quintessential minority issue because it was
directly attributed to the strength of Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act. It was Section 5 that permitted council
districts to be drawn to fully reflect black, Latino and
Asian American voting strength going back to the 1980s when
Section 5 was used to stop a discriminatory councilmanic
redistricting plan. And it was Section 5 that preserved that
minority voting strength in all subsequent decennial
redistricting plans. Shelby County v. Holder may have taken
that tool away but it's importance was nonetheless evident
months later.
I respectfully submit, that this is why Congress must
restore this aspect of the Voting Rights Act.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, as I close out this Special Order
on voting rights, I would be remiss if I didn't say that, as a daughter
of Selma, I can think of no more noble thing for me to fight for than
voting rights and the full restoration of those voting rights. After
all, it was because of the blood, sweat, and tears in my district and
in my hometown that we have so many elected officials that are of
color.
It is no small wonder why we are seeing such efforts to go out and
make sure that people don't have a right to vote when elected officials
say in their remarks as they are introducing legislation for
restrictive voting photo IDs, make comments like, ``Well, the people
that we are restricting will only be Democratic voters.'' That just
suggests to me that the reason why these restrictive voting photo ID
laws were being promulgated was to do exactly that--suppress certain
groups of voters. That is absolutely unacceptable and un-American.
I could also tell you that one of the greatest moments for me on this
House floor was when I had an opportunity to escort, as my State of the
Union guest in 2015, Miss Amelia Boynton Robinson, who was 104 when she
came to the State of the Union in 2015.
You see, Miss Amelia Boynton Robinson, on Bloody Sunday in 1965, was
bludgeoned on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, along with Congressman John
Lewis. But at 104 years old, she was so excited to come to this august
body and to hear President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address.
She was excited not because she would get an opportunity to meet the
first African American President, but she was excited because she got a
chance to see this elected body at work.
She told me that one of her proudest moments was not only casting a
ballot, but she told me that one of her proudest moments was to be the
first African American woman to be on the ballot in the State of
Alabama running for Congress. She ran, Mr. Speaker, for this seat, the
Seventh Congressional seat that I am so fortunate to have. She ran for
that seat in 1964.
So when I think about Miss Amelia Boynton, I not only think about
Bloody Sunday and her sacrifice on that bridge, but I also think about
her courage, the courage of this African American woman to have the
audacity to think that she could be a Member of Congress from the great
State of Alabama in 1964.
I know I get to walk these hallowed Halls and I get to stand here
today and speak with you, Mr. Speaker, because of her courage and her
sacrifice. It is not lost on me that she is looking down now wondering
what that sacrifice truly meant to America, that we could 50 years
later have a Court case that totally dismantled the full protections of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Now, when Miss Amelia Boynton Robinson came to the State of the
Union, we had an opportunity to meet and talk with President Barack
Obama before his speech. I will never forget being in the holding room,
if you will, behind this Chamber. As many of the members of his Cabinet
would come into the room, they would say the same thing: ``Miss
Boynton, we stand on your shoulders.'' ``Miss Boynton, we are so glad
that you made those sacrifices on that bridge because we get to do what
we do now because you made those sacrifices. We stand on your
shoulders.''
I can tell you that person after person--Secretary of State,
Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of HUD--they were all saying the
same thing. By the time the Attorney General came up to her and said,
``Miss Boynton, I stand on your shoulders,'' she looked up at him and
said, ``Get off my shoulders. Do your own work.'' Yes, Mr. Speaker, at
104 years old, she had
[[Page H5794]]
the temerity to say, ``Do your own work.''
It is not enough that we stand on the shoulders of giants like Amelia
Boynton Robinson and John Lewis; we have to do our own work. And so I
say to this body that we can do our own work by protecting that sacred
right to work, and that we should do our own work, as we dedicate
ourselves to the proposition that these average, ordinary Americans had
the nerve, the audacity to fight for. If they could fight for it over
50 years ago, we can fight for it today.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to lead the Special Order hour
on voting rights not only as a native of Selma, Alabama, but as a very
proud, proud beneficiary of the strength and power of the right to vote
and of their sacrifices.
I say in closing, I hope that my fellow colleagues will join us by
signing on to H.R. 2867, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. I urge all
of my colleagues to do so. It is in some way, some small way, with a
huge impact potentially, that we can ensure that this great democracy
lives on. After all, if one American is denied access to the ballot
box, it does, in fact, go to the integrity of all of the election
process.
So much is at stake not only in this Presidential election, but in
every election, because in every election, Americans use their vote as
their voice. So when you don't have a vote, you don't have a voice in
this great democracy. No vote, no voice; we should remember that as
elected officials.
As we grapple with the opportunity that we have to come up with a
modern-day formula, I would be willing to sit with any of my Republican
colleagues to come up with a modern-day formula that would work in both
Houses and by both parties. I think it is critically important that we
do this work. I think that there is no greater work that we could be
doing than to restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of
1965.
I am also reminded of what Mrs. Boynton said when she finally did
meet the President. It was quite a moment for all of us who were
present when he finally walked into that small holding room, and he
kneeled beside her and he took her hand and he said, ``Mrs. Boynton, I
don't know how to say thank you enough. I get to give a speech as a
President of the United States in a few minutes, and it is because of
your sacrifice.'' And Mrs. Boynton, at 104, without missing a beat,
looked up at our President and said, ``Make it a good one.'' Yes, she
said, ``Make this speech a good one.'' Why? Because of the sacrifices
that she and so many brave Americans had on that bridge.
We, as Americans, who are beneficiaries of that amazing legacy, owe
it to them to make every day a good one, to make everything we do good
because people sacrificed for us to have the rights that we have. So I
remember ``Make it a good one,'' and I say to my colleagues, let us
make it a good one right here in this august body by passing the Voting
Rights Advancement Act of 2015 and fully restoring the voting rights
protections of all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, this November, voters across our
country are faced with the likely prospect of heading to the polls
without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act.
Signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson, the Voting
Rights Act broke down state and local laws that kept minorities from
exercising their constitutional right to vote.
That fundamental right of our democracy was severely undermined by
the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County vs. Holder.
That misguided decision gutted Section 5, the heart of the Voting
Rights Act, which barred states and localities with a history of
discriminatory policies from implementing new voting changes without
the approval of the Department of Justice.
Based on the Supreme Court ruling, states are now free to pass and
enforce laws that create obstacles to voting.
That is exactly what many states are doing: in fact in the 2014 mid-
term election and in this year's presidential primaries numerous voters
were denied the ability to participate in our democratic process.
A report from the NALEO Educational Fund, estimates these restrictive
voting changes, could result in more than 875,000 eligible Latinos
finding it more difficult to vote this year than in 2012.
In other words, without the protections of The Voting Rights Act this
presidential election will be the first in over 50 years in which
American voters of color will be faced with new and renewed obstacles
to voting. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 14 states will
have new voting restrictions in place for this year's presidential
election. These new laws include strict photo ID requirements, cutbacks
to early voting, and new registration restrictions.
To help our constituents gain a better understanding of the negative
impact of the Supreme Court decision, this past May, like many of my
colleagues, I hosted a forum titled ``Protect Your Future: Restore the
Vote.'' My co-chairs were Representative Linda Sanchez, Chair of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Representative Judy Chu, Chair of the
Asian Pacific American Caucus; and special guest, Representative Karen
Bass.
Members from our communities heard expert testimony from the NAACP,
the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing
Justice and NALEO.
Panelists gave examples of the concerted assault on minorities at the
ballot box and testified to the undeniable value of Congress restoring
the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5 by passing H.R. 2867, the
Voting Rights Advancement Act.
I thank our panelists for sharing their expertise and will submit
their testimony into the Congressional Record today.
On a positive note, as we rapidly approach the 2016 presidential
election, critical victories are being won as courts continue to strike
down racist and discriminatory voting laws.
In July of this year, the Texas U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit, found that the state's voter ID law discriminated against
African-American and Latino voters. Days later, judges of the 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in North Carolina found that North Carolina
state law targeted black voters, and I quote, ``with almost surgical
precision.''
While these are important victories it is nevertheless a tragedy to
our Democracy that so much time and money has been spent for American
voters to win back a right already granted to them under the
Constitution of the United States.
The ability to vote is not a Democratic or Republican right. It is an
American right and the cornerstone of our democracy.
Today, I join my colleagues in urging the Republican leadership to
join Democrats to live up to their Constitutional responsibility to
protect every American's right to vote by passing H.R. 2867, the Voting
Rights Advancement Act.
The ability to vote is one of the most fundamental rights. That right
is not a Democratic or Republican right. It is an American right and
the cornerstone of our democracy.
I include in the Record the following testimony:
Testimony of Stewart Kwoh, Executive Director and President, Asian
Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, May 20, 2016
Hon. Congressmembers: Thank you for inviting me to this
critical subject of voting rights.
My name is Stewart Kwoh, and I am the Executive Director
and President of Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los
Angeles. We are the largest civil rights organization in the
nation dedicated to issues affecting the Asian American,
Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) communities.
As a civil rights organization, we have a voting rights
project working to ensure that systems and policies do not
dilute the AANHPI votes and that language assistance is
provided under federal and state laws. We are part of a
national affiliation with offices in Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, and Washington D.C.
On July 18, 2013, our entire affiliation filed a joint
statement with Asian Americans Legal Defense and Education
Fund before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil
Justice Committee on the Judiciary United States House of
Representatives at the hearing on ``The Voting Rights Act
after the Supreme Court's Decision in Shelby County.'' My
plan today is not to repeat our joint statement. Instead, I
will first provide a brief overview of what the Shelby County
v. Holder decision means for Asian Americans nationally. I
will then briefly outline issues faced by Asian American
voters in California and close with the importance of the
Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Impact of Shelby County v. Holder decision
Immediately prior to Shelby, there were 15 states that were
covered in whole or in part under Section 5 (not including
states in which the state or localities terminated coverage
through bailout). Over half of these states are among the top
20 states having the largest Asian American populations in
the country.
Former Section 5 jurisdictions are also home to the most
rapidly growing Asian American populations. From 2000 to
2010, the country's Asian American population grew by 46%,
making Asian Americans the fastest-growing racial group in
the nation. Notably, in over two-thirds of former Section 5
states,
[[Page H5795]]
the Asian American population grew at a more rapid rate than
this.
The following list illustrates this point:
California (partial coverage for Kings, Monterey and Yuba
Counties)--5.6 million Asian Americans, largest Asian
American population by state, 34% growth since 2000
New York (partial coverage for Bronx, Kings and New York
Counties)--1.6 million Asian Americans, second-largest Asian
American population by state, 35% growth since 2000
Texas (statewide coverage)--1.1 million Asian Americans,
third-largest Asian American population by state, 72% growth
since 2000
Florida (partial coverage for Collier, Hardee, Hendry,
Hillsborough and Monroe Counties)--over 570,000 Asian
Americans, eighth-largest Asian American population by state,
72% growth since 2000
Virginia (statewide coverage)--over 520,000 Asian
Americans, ninth-largest Asian American population by state,
71% growth since 2000
Georgia (statewide coverage)--over 360,000 Asian Americans,
13th-largest Asian American population by state, 83% growth
since 2000
North Carolina (partial coverage for 40 counties)--over
250,000 Asian Americans, 15th-largest Asian American
population by state, 85% growth since 2000
Arizona (statewide coverage)--over 230,000 Asian Americans,
19th-largest Asian American population by state, 95% growth
since 2000
The termination of Section 5 coverage for these states
comes at a pivotal moment for Asian American communities,
which in recent years have begun to emerge politically in
these states as they increase in size. As our nation has
historically witnessed, when groups of racial minorities move
into an area, or outpace the general population growth in an
area, the result is often racial tension and sometimes
racial discrimination, including voting discrimination.
Continuing Barriers to Voting
Asian Americans in California continue to face barriers in
the electoral process. While a number of jurisdictions meet
their obligations to provide language assistance under
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act in commendable fashion,
enforcement actions to bring jurisdictions into compliance
have been necessary in some instances. In the past decade,
the U.S. Department of Justice brought Section 203
enforcement actions against San Diego County (2004), the City
of Rosemead (2005), the City of Walnut (2007), and Alameda
County (2011), for non-compliance with respect to Asian
language requirements.
In 2013, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice affiliation
released a report that examined Asian language assistance in
Section 203-covered jurisdictions across the country,
including the eight counties in California covered for Asian
American populations. Drawing upon poll monitoring carried
out at nearly 900 election precincts during the November 2012
election, the report shows that some jurisdictions are making
use of good practices to provide written and oral assistance.
At the same time, the report found low visibility or no
display of translated materials at 45% of poll sites
monitored and a lack of bilingual poll workers at nearly a
quarter of poll sites monitored.
In the vote dilution context, Asian Americans are
confronted with racially polarized voting that impairs their
ability to elect candidates of choice, perhaps not in every
area of the state where Asian Americans are concentrated, but
at least in certain areas of the state. Leading up to the
post-2010 Census redistricting, Asian Americans Advancing
Justice-Los Angeles worked with a political scientist to
assess the existence of racially polarized voting against
Asian Americans in the San Gabriel Valley and South Bay
regions of Los Angeles County. In his analysis of 13
elections, the political scientist found that in all
elections Asian American voters demonstrated cohesive voting
patterns in favor of Asian American candidates. Non-Asian
Americans tended to vote against the candidates preferred by
Asian American voters; in ten of the elections, non-Asian
Americans gave less than 50% of their vote to candidates
preferred by Asian Americans.
Importance of the Voting Rights Advancement Act
On June 24, 2015, the Voting Rights Advancement Act
(Advancement Act) was introduced in the Senate (S. 1659) and
the House (H.R. 2867). The Advancement Act has received broad
and vocal support from the civil rights community because it
responds to the unique, modern-day challenges of voting
discrimination that have evolved in the 50 years since the
Voting Rights Act first passed. The Advancement Act
recognizes that changing demographics require tools that
protect voters nationwide--especially voters of color, voters
who rely on languages other than English, and voters with
disabilities. It also requires that jurisdictions make voting
changes public and transparent. The Advancement Act would
modernize the preclearance formula to cover states with a
pattern of discrimination that puts voters at risk, ensure
that last-minute voting changes will not adversely affect
voters, protect voters from the types of voting changes most
likely to discriminate against people of color and language
minorities, enhance the ability to apply preclearance review
when needed, and expand the effective Federal Observer
program and improve voting rights protections for Native
Americans and Alaska Natives.
Since the Shelby decision, 17 states have implemented or
adopted new voting restriction laws which are in place for
the first time for the 2016 presidential election. Many of
these restrictions, such as ID requirements, proof of
citizenship, and limitations to early voting, are practices
that would require preclearance by the Department of Justice
under the Advancement Act. These are known practices which
often result in the disenfranchisement of voters,
particularly voters of color and low-income voters.
Some of the known practices disproportionately affect
naturalized citizens, and in the United States, 63% of Asian
Americans who are U.S. citizens and 18 or older are
naturalized citizens. Proof of citizenship, in particular,
has a disparate impact on naturalized citizens. Unlike birth
certificates, naturalization certificates cannot be copied
without lawful authority. When Arizona implemented its proof
of citizenship requirement (which was later found to violate
the National Voter Registration Act), some counties
accepted copies of the naturalization certificate, others
did not. In the counties that did not, a naturalized
citizen without a passport would have to register in
person at the election official's office during normal
business hours. Moreover, duplicate or replacement copies
of the certificate can take over a year and costs $345 to
obtain a copy. For those without the funds to obtain a
duplicate copy, the proof of citizenship requirement is a
denial of the right to vote. Even for those who are able
to afford the fee, many elections can occur during the
time it takes to obtain a duplicate. It is, therefore,
crucial for the Department of Justice to have the
authority to critically review proof of citizenship
requirements linked to voting.
Earlier this year, we saw the implementation of North
Carolina's new photo ID law. As noted above, North Carolina
has the 15th largest Asian American community by state. Rudy
Ravindra, a resident of North Carolina, wrote an op-ed for
Raleigh's The News & Observer recounting his March 2016 early
voting experience. According to Mr. Ravindra, after giving
his driver's license to the poll worker, the poll worker
required Mr. Ravindra to spell his name as he (the poll
worker) typed it into the system. Mr. Ravindra reported that
his wife had the same experience on election day. In both
situations, poll workers simply looked at the white voters'
identification cards and did not ask them to spell their
names. While the Advancement Act focuses on policies before
implementation, the Department of Justice might have blocked
North Carolina's ID law in the first place.
Another known practice that would be subject to
preclearance by the Advancement Act is changes that reduce,
consolidate, or relocate voting locations. In Arizona's March
primary, the election official in Maricopa County
consolidated precincts into large vote centers but failed to
provide enough staff support. Each vote center was assigned
21,000 voters. News coverage reported voters having to wait 4
to 5 hours to vote. As noted above, Arizona saw 95% growth in
the Asian American population since 2000, and Maricopa County
is home to 82,000 Asian American eligible voters. Oversight
by the Department of Justice could have stopped the closure
of neighborhood precincts and prevented the
disenfranchisement of the voters who could not stand in line
for hours.
In the three years since the Shelby decision, Congress has
failed to restore the Voting Rights Act, and voters have been
disenfranchised due to new laws and practices implemented
post-Shelby. While the three Congressmembers holding this
roundtable have been champions in advocating for the Voting
Rights Advancement Act, the time is now for the full Congress
to take up and debate the bill. Congress must come together,
as it has each time the Voting Rights Act has been before it,
to restore the protections found in the Voting Rights Act to
ensure a stronger democracy.
Thank you again for the invitation to testify before you
today.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, it's ironic that, as a country, we
consistently advocate for other countries to support democratic
traditions and institutions--and empower their citizens.
Sadly, because of the Shelby decision, we are not living up to our
own standards.
But, we cannot lay all the blame on the Supreme Court. The Court was
clear in their ruling While they invalidated the mechanism used to
determine what jurisdictions required preclearance--they also suggested
that Congress could come up with a standard that passes constitutional
muster.
Sadly, thanks to Republican inaction, we have failed in that task.
Now, we are about to have the first Presidential election--in five
decades--without the very basic protections that were enshrined in the
Voting Rights Act.
What does this mean? It means that some of our most vulnerable
populations--communities of color, young people, students and women--
are more likely to encounter obstacles to exercising their most basic
right.
And, let's be absolutely clear--there remain serious challenges and
problems when it comes to protecting voters. By no means are the
protections in the VRA out-of-date or no longer necessary.
[[Page H5796]]
We saw a stark example of this earlier this year--in Brooklyn. In
April, some 120,000 voters from the rolls in Kings County--the largest
county in the state--were improperly purged from the voter rolls.
And, an analysis by local media outlets found those affected were
disproportionately Latino voters--mostly in working class neighborhoods
like Sunset Park, East New York, and parts of Bushwick and
Williamsburg.
Now, let's recall that Kings County was previously covered by Section
5 of the Voting Rights Act. Would these voters have been removed if the
VRA were still intact? The fact is we do not know.
But we do know this--our democracy and our system of voting is not
perfect--and to argue that voters are no longer disenfranchised is
simply false. We've seen that clearly in Brooklyn.
And, let me make one other observation--those who argue that we need
more stringent voter ID laws to prevent ``voter fraud'' are making a
dishonest argument. Every credible expert who has examined the data has
concluded this--voter fraud is exceedingly rare, if not completely
nonexistent.
Voting rights should not be a Republican issue or a Democratic issue.
We should all be passionate about defending and upholding this most
basic right--for all Americans.
Yet, this Congress--thanks to the Republican Leadership--has failed
to do the necessary work to restore the protections in the Voting
Rights Act.
Earlier this year, my colleagues Hakeem Jeffries, Grace Meng and I
hosted a forum on the Voting Rights Act. We heard from local experts
about the need to restore these protections.
Let me conclude simply by saying this--it is shameful this Congress
has not addressed this issue. But it is also not surprising. Just as
this House has not acted on gun violence and has not yet allocated
appropriate funding to address Zika, or dealt with the Flint water
crisis--this is yet one more example of how House Republicans are
simply not doing their job.
So, I call on my colleagues--do your job. Let's do the hard work of
reinstating these democratic protections so voters are not
disenfranchised.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Voting Rights
Advancement Act, H.R. 2867, introduced by my friends and colleagues
Representatives Terri Sewell, Linda Sanchez, and Judy Chu. It is long
past time that we take up their bipartisan bill, which would restore
the protections of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Speaker, I think it surprises few of us that following the
Supreme Court's misguided decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the
right to vote has been increasingly attacked in states across the
country. The court's decision invalidated the coverage formula in the
Voting Rights Act by which certain states and jurisdictions with a
history of discrimination were required to preclear election changes
with the U.S. Department of Justice. The results have been grave. Since
2010, twenty-two states have implemented new voting restrictions that
make it more difficult for students, seniors, those with disabilities,
and minorities to vote. This past summer alone, federal courts struck
down new prohibitive voting laws in five different states. Federal
protections, such as preclearance, prevent these pernicious laws from
being passed in the first place, and this recent surge of court cases
only underscores the importance of restoring the Voting Rights Act.
Disenfranchisement and voter discrimination are realities that
Americans face across the country, including in my district in New York
City.
To further investigate the effects of voter discrimination, I hosted
a Voting Rights Forum this past May through the leadership of the
Democratic Outreach and Engagement Task Force with my colleagues
Representatives Velazquez and Jeffries. We were fortunate to host
voting rights experts to talk about the effects of the Shelby County
decision on our constituents.
I invited Jerry Vattamala from the Asian American Legal Defense and
Education Fund to talk about the particular barriers that the Asian-
American community faces to participating in the electoral process, and
why Congress needs to restore the Voting Rights Act. I include in the
Record his testimony from the event:
Statement of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund Jerry
Vattamala, Esq. Director, Democracy Program Hearing
``Fragile at Fifty: The Urgent Need to Strengthen and Restore the
Voting Rights Act'' Before Hon. Nydia Velazquez, Hon. Grace Meng and
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, New York City
May 20, 2016
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(AALDEF) is a 42-year-old national civil rights organization
based in New York City that promotes and protects the civil
rights of Asian Americans through litigation, legal advocacy,
and community education.
Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has been
critical in preventing actual and threatened discrimination
aimed at Asian Americans in national and local elections. As
a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v.
Holder, Asian American voters have suffered a serious
rollback in their right to vote. AALDEF submits this
testimony to elucidate the precarious landscape of Asian
American voting rights in wake of the decision in Shelby
County v. Holder.
AALDEF has monitored elections and conducted annual
multilingual exit polls since 1988. Consequently, AALDEF has
collected valuable data that documents the continued need for
the VRA's protections. In 2012, AALDEF dispatched over 800
attorneys, law students, and community volunteers to 127 poll
sites in 14 states to document voter problems on Election
Day. The survey polled 9,298 Asian American voters. In 2014,
AALDEF surveyed 4,102 Asian American voters at 64 poll sites
in 37 cities in 11 states.
Many voting problems that we observed in 2012 have
persisted through 2014 and beyond. Operating without the
preclearance provisions, the most effective tool of the VRA,
the Department of Justice has lost its ability to block
voting changes before they occur. As a result, AALDEF and
other organizations and individuals have had to engage in
more affirmative litigation to protect the fundamental right
to vote.
AALDEF has previously submitted testimony to Congress,
filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court of the United
States, and released detailed reports regarding Asian
American voting problems and the continued need for the full
protections of the VRA, including Section 5 preclearance.
Asian Americans continue to face pervasive and current
discrimination in voting, particularly in jurisdictions that
were previously covered for Section 5 preclearance. For
example, in the 2004 primary elections in Bayou La Batre,
Alabama, supporters of a white incumbent running against
Phuong Tan Huynh, a Vietnamese American candidate, made a
concerted effort to intimidate Asian American voters. They
challenged Asian Americans at the polls, falsely accusing
them of not being U.S. citizens or city residents, or of
having felony convictions. The challenged voters were forced
to complete a paper ballot and have that ballot vouched for
by a registered voter. In explaining his and his supporters'
actions, the losing incumbent stated, ``We figured if they
couldn't speak good English, they possibly weren't American
citizens.'' The Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated the
allegations and found them to be racially motivated. As a
result, the challengers were prohibited from interfering in
the general election, and Bayou La Batre, for the first time,
elected an Asian American to the City Council.
Also in 2004, New York poll workers required Asian American
voters to provide naturalization certificates before they
could vote. At another poll site; a police officer demanded
that all Asian American voters show photo identification,
even though photo ID is not required to vote in New York
elections. If voters could not produce such identification,
the officer turned them away and told them to go home.
Overt racism and discrimination against Asian Americans at
the polls persists to the present day and will worsen without
Section 5 to combat such behavior. Prior to the Supreme
Court's decision, voting rights advocates used Section 5 to
protect Asian American voters in redistricting, changes to
voting systems, and changes to polling sites. The following
are recent examples of harmful actions against Asian American
voters that were stopped by Section 5. Now that the coverage
formula has been struck, and many jurisdictions are no longer
covered by Section 5, Asian Americans are once again
vulnerable to nefarious discriminatory actions such as these
that will weaken their voting rights and power.
For example, redistricting plans continue to be drafted
with discriminatory intent in states with large Asian
American communities. As shown in Perry v. Perez, 132 S. Ct.
934 (2012), the Texas Legislature drafted a redistricting
plan, Plan H283, that would have had significant negative
effects on the ability of minorities, and Asian Americans in
particular, to exercise their right to vote.
Since 2004, the Asian American community in Texas State
House District 149 has voted as a bloc with Hispanic and
African American voters to elect Hubert Vo, a Vietnamese
American, as their state representative. District 149 has a
combined minority citizen voting-age population of 62
percent. Texas is home to the third-largest Asian American
community in the United States, growing 72 percent between
2000 and 2010.
In 2011, the Texas Legislature sought to eliminate Vo's
State House seat and redistribute the coalition of minority
voters to the surrounding three districts with larger non-
minority populations. Plan H283 would have thus abridged the
Asian American community's right to vote in Texas by diluting
the large Asian American populations across the state.
In addition to discrimination in redistricting, Asian
American voters have also endured voting system changes that
impair their ability to elect candidates of choice. For
example, before 2001 in New York City, the only electoral
success for Asian Americans was on local community school
boards.
[[Page H5797]]
In each election--in 1993, 1996, and 1999--Asian American
candidates ran for the school board and won. These victories
were due, in part, to the alternative voting system known as
``single transferable voting'' or ``preference voting.''
Instead of selecting one representative from single-member
districts, voters ranked candidates in order of preference,
from ``1'' to ``9.'' In 1998, New York attempted to switch
from a ``preference voting'' system, where voters ranked
their choices, to a ``limited voting'' system, where voters
could select only four candidates for the nine-member board,
and the nine candidates with the highest number of votes were
elected. This change would have put Asian American voters in
a worse position to elect candidates of their choice.
Furthermore, the ability of Asian Americans to vote is also
frustrated by sudden changes to poll sites without informing
voters. For example, there have been numerous instances of
sudden poll site closures in Asian American neighborhoods in
New York City, where the Board of Elections failed to take
reasonable steps to ensure that Asian American voters are
informed of their correct poll sites. Voters have been
misinformed about their poll sites before the elections or
have been misdirected by poll workers on Election Day, thus
creating confusion for Asian American voters and disrupting
their ability to vote.
In 2001, primary elections in New York City were
rescheduled due to the attacks on the World Trade Center. The
week before the rescheduled primaries, AALDEF discovered that
a certain poll site, I.S. 131, a school located in the heart
of Chinatown and within the restricted zone in lower
Manhattan, was being used by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency for services related to the World Trade Center
attacks. The Board chose to close down the poll site and no
notice was given to voters. The Board provided no media
release to the Asian-language newspapers, made no attempts to
send out a mailing to voters, and failed to arrange for the
placement of signs or poll workers at the site to redirect
voters to other sites. In fact, no consideration at all was
made for the fact that the majority of voters at this site
were limited English proficient, and that the site had been
targeted for Asian language assistance under Section 203.
With Section 5 no longer applicable in most jurisdictions,
disruptive changes to polling sites, voting systems, and
redistricting plans can now occur unfettered, wreaking havoc
on Asian American voters' ability to cast an effective
ballot.
American citizens of Asian ancestry have long been targeted
as foreigners and unwanted immigrants, and racism and
discrimination against Asian Americans persist to this day.
These negative perceptions have real consequences for the
ability of Asian Americans to fully participate in the
electoral and political process. Section 5 of the VRA was an
effective tool in protecting Asian American voters against a
host of actions that threaten to curtail their voting rights.
However, the Supreme Court's recent decision dismantling the
coverage formula has left a large gap in protections for
Asian American voters that requires Congressional action. We
look to Congress to work in a bipartisan fashion to respond
to the Court's ruling and strengthen the VRA, as it did
during the 2006 reauthorizations and each previous
reauthorization. We respectfully offer our assistance in such
a process.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, in just three days, the National Museum of
African American History & Culture will officially open its doors to
the public. One hundred years in the making, the museum explores the
richness and diversity of the African American experience.
As a former public school history teacher in Charleston, South
Carolina and a lifelong student of history, I have always worked to
improve our understanding of the past. History frames our views on
current events and has been called the study of human nature by using
examples.
The struggle for the right to vote is an important part of that
history. It's a history that I know quite well--having lived through
some of it. I met my wife while in jail for helping to organize one of
the biggest student demonstrations in the South. More than one thousand
students from South Carolina State and Claflin University assembled to
march to downtown Orangeburg in March 1960. 388 of us were arrested.
A few months later, in October 1960, I met John Lewis and Dr. King on
the campus of Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia. We were seeking
the right to vote.
When the Voting Rights Act was signed into law in August 1965, it
restored the promise of the 19th amendment. It prohibited racial
discrimination in voting and has been called the most successful piece
of civil rights legislation in American history.
It was reauthorized by Congress on a strong bipartisan basis in 1970,
1975, 1982, 1992 and, most recently, in 2006.
I testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights in support of extending Section 5, with its
strong preclearance requirements, in 1981. I was South Carolina's Human
Affairs Commissioner at the time. At the time, the preclearance
requirements were necessary to prevent states with a history of
discrimination from engaging in further discriminatory practices. They
were necessary again in 1992, in 2006, and they still are necessary
today.
With no coverage formula in place for the last three years, states
have been free to engage in nefarious schemes to suppress minority
turnout, dilute the voting strength of communities of color, erect new
barriers to the ballot box and make it harder for millions of Americans
to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
And they have.
When Americans go to the ballot box in less than fifty days they'll
find new voting restrictions in place in 17 states for the first time
in a presidential election.
Nearly 8 million Latino voters living in previously covered
jurisdictions will be vulnerable to voting discrimination and changes
in election administration.
Five federal lawsuits involving Native American voting rights in ND,
UT, SD, AZ and AK have been filed since Shelby County v. Holder.
North Carolina's legislature got to work within hours of the Shelby
County decision on its ``monster'' voting law which imposed strict
photo ID requirements and cut back early voting. The state has spent
more than $5 million defending the law--which the 4th Circuit said,
``target[ted] African Americans with almost surgical precision'' and
``impose[d] cures for problems that did not exist.''
Six former preclearance states have closed voter registration offices
and moved or closed polling places. And six local jurisdictions have
redrawn districts or changed the rules to dilute minority votes.
In Georgia alone, 372,000 voters have been purged or removed from the
voter rolls in the last two years with little or no awareness. And in
Hancock County, one in twenty voters--virtually all African-Americans--
were removed from the voting rolls and sheriff's deputies began showing
up at their homes commanding they defend themselves at board meetings
as a so-called ``courtesy.''
Texas has spent more than $3.5 million defending its discriminatory
photo ID law and just yesterday, was ordered by a federal court to stop
purposefully misleading voters about the requirements to vote.
A recent study from 2006-2014 found that the racial turnout gap
doubles or triples in states with strict voter ID requirements. They
concluded that ``strict voter identification laws substantially alter
the makeup of who votes and ultimately skew democracy in favor of
whites and those on the political right.''
I'm not reading from a history book. This is happening right now--in
the United States of America in 2016.
This Congress--Republicans in this Congress--have done little more
than pay lip service to voting rights for the last three years. As we
approach the upcoming election, I cannot help but feel as if the
lessons of history are creeping up on us. Let us not be doomed to
repeat it.
Congress must restore the Voting Rights Act. We can do it immediately
and we should.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in the fifty plus years since the Rev. Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., articulated the dream of a generation, this
nation has seen inspiring progress toward the ideal of equality under
the law. Nowhere has this progress been more dramatic than in the arena
of voting rights. The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 heralded
a new era of political opportunity for African-Americans not seen since
Reconstruction.
At the state and local level, Section 5 of the Act--which required
jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to obtain
advanced approval for voting changes--was especially important in
leveling the playing field by shifting notice requirements and the
burden of proof to jurisdictions with a history of discrimination,
rather than relying on traditional litigation which would have taken
years and countless costs to root out patterns of discrimination in
voting. More than any other provision of the Act, Section 5 can be
credited with the sustained progress to voting equality.
The Supreme Court, in its 5-4 Shelby County v. Holder decision from
2013, has suspended implementation of the Section 5 pre-clearance
program by invalidating the formula used to designate covered
jurisdictions. This decision has seriously undermined the nation's
progress toward equal voting rights by allowing discriminatory voting
measures to evade streamlined review and requiring minority voters to
engage in costly protracted litigation.
In the wake of a divided Supreme Court, many former Section 5 covered
states have enacted harsh ``second generation'' obstacles to voting
rights, such as restrictive voter ID laws, limits on early voting and
voter registration, and bans on ex-offenders from being able to regain
their voting rights. Most of these voter suppression measures have a
disproportionate impact on minorities, seniors, young people, and other
historically-disadvantaged individuals. Not surprisingly, an ever
increasing number of voters on election day are
[[Page H5798]]
plagued by long lines at the polls, confusing voter rules, and
restrictions intended to deter them from voting.
Literally days after Supreme Court issued the Shelby County ruling,
formerly covered jurisdictions enacted discriminatory voting practices
that would have been blocked by Section 5 or not even attempted passage
of legislation. Texas implemented its restrictive photo ID law, which
had been previously blocked by Section 5. The North Carolina state
legislature passed a law that imposed a strict photo ID requirement,
significantly cut back on early voting, and reduced the window for
voter registration. Alabama moved ahead with its law requiring strict
photo ID to vote. And Mississippi officials moved to enforce its photo
ID law, which the state submitted for preclearance but was never
allowed to implement.
In 2013 and 2014, at least 10 of the 15 states that had been covered
in whole or in part by Section 5 introduced new restrictive legislation
that would make it harder for minority voters to cast a ballot. These
have passed in two states: Virginia (stricter photo ID requirement and
increased restrictions on third-party voter registration) and North
Carolina (the above-discussed omnibus bill, which included the ID
requirement, early voting cutbacks, and the elimination of same-day
voter registration).
Further, seven other formerly covered states also passed restrictive
legislation in 2011 and 2012, prior to the Shelby County decision in
anticipation of victory.
Section 5's loss perhaps has been felt most acutely at the local
level. The great majority of voting law changes that were blocked as
discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act were enacted at the local
level: counties, municipalities, and other state sub-jurisdictions. We
have witnessed local jurisdictions step into the void left by Section 5
to pass all manner of discriminatory voting procedures: discriminatory
local redistricting plans; closing polling places and DMV's in minority
communities and changing election dates, just to name a few.
Though Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is still available to
challenge these discriminatory practices, the time and expense of
litigation leaves these practices in place to do years of damage and
places a substantial burden on the rights of minority voters. It took
years of litigation to roll back the challenged practices mentioned
earlier in Texas and North Carolina.
We will enter a Presidential election without Section 5 protection
for the first time in 50 years. The danger to our democratic process
cannot be overstated. Already, we have heard political candidates
discussing voting intimidation tactics and we must focus on the status
of federal observers under the law.
As a staunch proponent, and a remaining member of Congress who voted
for the Act in 1965, I joined Representative Sensenbrenner to introduce
H.R. 885, the Voting Rights Amendment Act, which is designed to restore
the vitality and effectiveness of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Though we have made progress in the courts over the past several
weeks in overturning some of these voter suppression measures, the
states and some localities have been quick to re-enact substitute
measures. This tactic was the very reason for the enactment of Section
5 in the first place and evidence of the need for reauthorizing
legislation.
In addressing these calculated voter suppression tactics, we cannot
forget those who have lost their voting rights and have no voice in
government. Currently, nearly 4 million of disqualified voters are not
in prison, but on probation or parole. Nearly 3 million of the
disenfranchised have completed their entire sentence, including
probation and parole. I believe that such prohibitions on voting
undermine the fundamental rights of people with felony convictions.
To correct this injustice, I have introduced H.R. 1459, the Democracy
Restoration Act which declares the right of a U.S. citizen to vote in
any election for federal office shall not be denied because that
individual has been convicted of a criminal offense.
Just as the Brennan Center has observed in their report on voting
rights post-Shelby County, ``For all the real progress Section 5
facilitated, the nation and its voters now lack a critical tool to
protect those earned advances. Bad laws with lasting, harmful
consequences now lack a review mechanism, the method of fighting these
laws is now limited to costly and time-intensive litigation, and the
public has lost the one centralized means to track the thousands of
changes annually that affect Americans' right to vote.''
Just as Congress ignored political headwinds and set partisan
differences aside five decades ago to prohibit discriminatory voting
practices, this Congress must again muster the political courage to
enact legislation to protect the voting rights of all Americans.
____________________