[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.

                          ____________________