[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1385-E1386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                             VOTING RIGHTS

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 21, 2016

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, to help our constituents gain a 
better understanding of the negative impact of the Supreme Court 
decision, on May 20, 2016, 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. The event was organized to educate 
constituents on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court decision, 
Shelby County vs. Holder.
  Members from our communities heard expert testimony from the National 
Association for Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) 
regarding the devastating impacts of the decision upon the Voting 
Rights Act. I include in the Record the expert testimony of Arturo 
Vargas, Executive Director of NALEO.

   Written Testimony By Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, National 
     Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) 
    Educational Fund, Before the Congressional Field Forum Entitled 
``Protect Your Future: Restore the Vote''--Los Angeles, CA May 20, 2016

       U.S. Representative Roybal-Allard, U.S. Representative Chu, 
     U.S. Representative Sanchez, U.S. Representative Bass: thank 
     you for extending the opportunity to submit testimony 
     concerning the status of Latino voting rights and protection 
     of all Americans' equal right to vote.
       The NALEO Educational Fund is the nation's leading non-
     profit, non-partisan organization that promotes full Latino 
     participation in the American political process, from 
     citizenship to public service. Our constituency encompasses 
     the more than 6,000 Latino elected and appointed officials 
     nationwide, and includes Republicans, Democrats, and 
     Independents. For several decades, the NALEO Educational Fund 
     has been at the forefront of efforts to advance policies that 
     protect Latino voting rights, and ensure that Latinos are 
     fully engaged as voters and have a fair opportunity to choose 
     their elected leaders. We have advocated passage of state and 
     federal voting rights legislation including the 
     reauthorization of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 
     1965 (VRA). We have also provided direct assistance to voters 
     encountering barriers to casting ballots through our year-
     round, bilingual hotline, 888-VE-Y-VOTA, and through 
     nationwide dissemination of bilingual voting rights public 
     service announcements, palm cards, and other materials.


           discriminatory voting laws threaten election 2016

       As the 2016 Presidential election approaches, we are 
     extremely concerned about policy developments that will 
     severely impede the robust participation of Latinos and all 
     Americans in our nation's democracy. The legal landscape 
     against which the election will play out has rarely changed 
     as dramatically as it did between the 2012 and 2016 election 
     cycles. For almost 50 years, the VRA's signature provision 
     protected voters in jurisdictions that had a demonstrated 
     propensity to adopt discriminatory policies. During Election 
     2012, in nine entire states and selected towns and counties 
     in seven additional states, no new voting law or 
     administrative change in voting procedures could be 
     implemented unless the U.S. Department of Justice or a 
     federal court first determined it to be free of 
     discriminatory motive and impact. This VRA-mandated 
     preclearance procedure stopped more than 1,000 problematic 
     provisions from taking effect between 1965 and 2013, when the 
     Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder.
       When it effectively ended most jurisdictions' preclearance 
     obligations, the Court's Shelby County decision inspired a 
     wave of restrictive election lawmaking, and rapid 
     implementation of laws that had been on hold, in states in 
     which the potential influence of underrepresented voters has 
     been dramatically increasing. For example, nine of the 12 
     states whose Latino populations grew most rapidly between 
     2000 and 2010 enacted laws that made it harder to register 
     and vote between 2010 and 2014. In six of the nine states 
     that saw more than a 100% increase in their Latino 
     populations between the 2000 and 2010 decennial Censuses, 
     there are new provisions in effect that will make voting in 
     2016 more difficult than it was in 2012. Moreover, nine of 
     the 15 states covered in whole or part by preclearance 
     procedures at the time of the Shelby County decision adopted 
     new statewide voting restrictions between 2008 and 2016.
       Restrictive election lawmaking and administrative practices 
     continue to have a disproportionately negative effect on 
     Latinos' ability and propensity to be active participants 
     i our democracy. The confluence between places where 
     Latino and other underrepresented voters' political 
     influence is increasing and places that have impaired 
     access to the ballot strongly suggests that the 
     discriminatory chilling impact of restrictive policies is 
     not a coincidence, but a motivating factor behind their 
     enactment.
       Restrictive voting policies implemented since 2012 include 
     barriers to voter registration, measures that leave 
     registrants with less opportunity to vote, and changes that 
     reduce the potential influence of underrepresented 
     communities' votes. New statewide laws alone, which have been 
     implemented in at least 19 states, will make it more 
     difficult for more than 875,000 eligible Latino voters to 
     cast ballots in November 2016. In addition to enacted laws, 
     some elections officials' administrative choices will impede 
     Latino access to the ballot in 2016. For example, a decision 
     to close two-thirds of polling places in Maricopa County, 
     Arizona, just a few short weeks in advance of the 2016 
     Presidential primary produced hours-long lines to vote, 
     particularly in neighborhoods with large populations of 
     underrepresented voters. Set forth below is a summary of 
     these restrictive policies; attached to this testimony is our 
     report, Latino Voters at Risk: Assessing the Impact of 
     Restrictive Voting Changes in Election 2016, which provides a 
     detailed description of the policies and their impact on the 
     Latino electorate.
     Verification of Citizenship at Registration:
       Since 2012, multiple states have begun to regularly check 
     registrants' citizenship. Some states will not process new 
     registration applications until receiving documentary proof 
     of U.S. citizenship, while other states review their existing 
     registration lists to identify possible non-citizen 
     registrants. Latinos are disproportionately likely to be 
     wrongly singled out as suspected non-citizens, because a 
     larger-than-average share of the Latino electorate is 
     composed of naturalized citizens who interacted with 
     government agencies prior to naturalizing and who frequently 
     appear in outdated records as non-citizens. Eligible Latino 
     voters are also overrepresented among U.S. citizens who lack 
     documents concerning their citizenship, and who face steep 
     barriers to obtaining that documentation. As a result, 
     Latinos are more likely than people of other races and 
     ethnicities to be prevented from registering or maintaining 
     registration by citizenship verification procedures.
     Earlier Registration Deadlines:
       Although advanced technology has reduced the practical need 
     to compile lists of eligible voters in advance of voting 
     periods, some jurisdictions have nonetheless moved voter 
     registration deadlines to earlier dates for 2016. Shortening 
     the available period for voter registration impairs the 
     Latino vote because Latino voters frequently lack basic 
     information about the voting process. Young and naturalized 
     voters who are the least likely to have meaningful voting 
     experience constitute much larger percentages of the Latino 
     electorate than of voters of other races and ethnicities, for 
     example. Latinos are also more highly mobile than voters of 
     other races and ethnicities, and thus more likely to have to 
     re-register at a new address to preserve their right to vote 
     in any given election year. In states that are tightening 
     registration deadlines, the relatively large number of 
     Latinos who must take action well in advance of Election Day 
     are at heightened risk of exclusion from the political 
     process.
     Expanded Reasons for Cancellation or Rejection of 
         Registrations:
       Since 2012, some states have adopted new provisions that 
     expand the circumstances in which election officials must 
     cancel existing registration records or reject new 
     registration applications. As is the case with earlier 
     registration deadlines, these measures make it more likely 
     that Latinos and other people who are less knowledgeable 
     about and experienced with the voting process will be 
     excluded from participating in elections merely because of a 
     technical requirement and not for any substantive reason.
     Restrictions on Third Party Voter Registration Activities:
       In the past four years, jurisdictions have continued to 
     make it more difficult for community-based organizations and 
     individuals not affiliated with a government entity to help 
     register new voters. Restrictions on third party registration 
     activities are likely to exacerbate the troubling gap between 
     white and Latino voter registration rates, since 
     disproportionately large percentages of Latinos indicate that 
     they register to vote at a public location associated with a 
     community registration drive, such as a school

[[Page E1386]]

     or shopping center. Moreover, community-based organizations 
     that are known and trusted also have more incentive and 
     opportunity to reach and engage low-propensity voters than 
     government officials and politicians. Hindering their efforts 
     may significantly reduce the likelihood that eligible, 
     unregistered Latinos will be asked by anyone to take part in 
     an election.
     Imposition of Strict Voter ID Requirements:
       The strict voter ID laws implemented in a number of 
     jurisdictions around the country since 2012 inhibit qualified 
     members of the electorate from casting ballots, because 
     millions of American adults do not possess any of the 
     personal identification documents that strict ID laws 
     require. Individuals who do not already hold a valid form of 
     voter ID face numerous potential barriers to obtaining a 
     qualifying document, including inability to pay application 
     fees, difficulty arranging transportation to identification-
     issuing locations during business hours, and lack of access 
     to documents like birth certificates that are mandatory 
     precursors to obtaining ID. Eligible Latino voters account 
     for disproportionate shares of both those without ID and 
     those who confront significant or insurmountable barriers to 
     obtaining ID. In addition, studies indicate that Latinos are 
     disproportionately likely to mistakenly presume they lack the 
     ID required to vote, and to decline to attempt to vote as a 
     result of apprehension about the scrutiny they will face at 
     the polls.
     Shortened In-Person Early Voting Periods:
       In recognition of the increasing demands on Americans' 
     time, many jurisdictions have extended voting days and hours 
     in the past fifteen years, and many voters have taken 
     advantage of early voting periods. Against this backdrop, 
     jurisdictions that have moved in the opposite direction to 
     limit the voting options available to their citizens stand 
     out for their recalcitrance. Latino voters are more likely 
     than others to lack workplace flexibility, and also to 
     shoulder childcare responsibilities, both factors that leave 
     potential Latino voters with less ability to vote where 
     polling places are open on fewer days and for fewer hours. 
     Unsurprisingly, the states with the highest early voting 
     rates are disproportionately Latino: the nine jurisdictions 
     whose citizen were most likely to vote early in 2008 and 2012 
     are home to less than 26% of all of the nation's voters, 
     but 36% of all Latino voters in the country. Where early 
     voting is constrained, Latinos are disproportionately 
     likely to be negatively affected.
     Restrictions on Absentee Voting:
       Provisions that have made it more difficult to vote by mail 
     also stand out as a contrast to the wider voting 
     opportunities that improved technology generally has made 
     possible. Several states implemented new laws between 
     November 2012 and Election Day 2016 that impose tighter 
     deadlines on mail ballots, restrict assistors' ability to 
     deliver ballots for people with limited mobility, and make it 
     more likely that mail ballots will be rejected. These and 
     other measures that have made it more difficult to vote by 
     mail are likely to have a disproportionate impact on Latino 
     voters, because their demanding schedules and heightened 
     likelihood of lacking access to personal transportation may 
     force many to rely on mail balloting as the only logistically 
     feasible voting option.
     Heightened Qualifications to Vote and Restrictions on 
         Counting Ballots:
       Restrictions on registration and voting mechanisms have 
     gained currency among legislators from many different states 
     in the years following the contentious Presidential election 
     of 2000. Voter advocates have begun to win high-profile 
     victories in legal challenges to voter ID laws, proof of 
     citizenship requirements, and shortened early voting periods. 
     However, simultaneously, jurisdictions have successfully 
     pursued alternative legislative provisions that have not yet 
     been the subject of successful anti-discrimination 
     enforcement actions. Examples of other voting restrictions 
     likely to disproportionately impair Latino voters in November 
     2016 include felon disfranchisement in Kentucky; refusal to 
     count any votes cast outside the correct precinct in North 
     Carolina; and heightened barriers to the counting of 
     provisional ballots in Ohio.
     Redistricting and Other Laws That Diminish Latino Voters' 
         Influence:
       Underrepresented voters' influence can be limited not only 
     by laws that create barriers to registration and voting, but 
     also by laws that diminish the weight of their votes. Between 
     the 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections, a number of 
     jurisdictions have adopted new measures concerning 
     redistricting and methods of election that impair the ability 
     of underrepresented communities to elect the candidates of 
     their choice. For example, some redistricting plans have 
     included districts in which Latinos constitute a slight 
     majority of the population, but are unlikely to constitute a 
     majority of voters because so many of the individuals 
     assigned to the district cannot or are not likely to vote. 
     When Latinos have preferences for the candidates of their 
     choice that are consistently different from those of the 
     majority white population, whites and Latinos may vote in 
     blocs and in opposition to one another, and the deliberate 
     manipulation of district boundaries can ensure that Latino 
     voter-preferred candidates are consistently defeated.
     Barriers Imposed by Administrative Policymaking:
       As widespread as restrictive election lawmaking has been in 
     state legislatures around the country between 2012 and 2016, 
     discretionary decisions made by unelected administrators--
     particularly those serving at municipal or other local 
     levels--now pose at least an equal threat to underrepresented 
     voters ability to participate in elections. With the 
     exception of noncompliance with language assistance 
     obligations, voting rights laws have rarely been used 
     successfully to challenge executive policymaking that has 
     discriminatory effects. Thus, Latino voters are particularly 
     vulnerable to negative consequences of discriminatory or 
     unsound election administration. Among the administrative 
     issues over which election administrators have discretionary 
     control, those that may have the most deleterious effect on 
     Latinos' ability to vote in 2016 include decisions about 
     registration list maintenance and the processing of new 
     registration applications, the closing and consolidation of 
     polling places, the allocation of resources among polling 
     places, and the degree of effort invested in providing 
     language assistance to voters not yet fully fluent in 
     English.


       conclusion--congress must restore the vra to full strength

       Laws and policies that make it harder for Latinos to 
     register and vote have a clear negative impact on the 
     individuals who are individually prevented from taking part 
     in elections by their inability to satisfy heightened 
     requirements. What may be less obvious is that restrictive 
     measures inhibit even those who are not directly affected by 
     them. The kinds of restrictive laws and policies that 
     jurisdictions around the country have adopted since Election 
     Day 2012 signal to members of the electorate that their 
     voices and input as voters are not welcomed, but only 
     grudgingly accepted when voters are willing to put in the 
     effort to clear the hurdles in their way. Because they 
     discourage a broad group of potential voters at a time when 
     voter participation has been in dangerous decline, policies 
     that create barriers to the ballot box are the wrong policy 
     choices for 2016. It is imperative that we instead encourage 
     Latinos and all Americans to become more active participants 
     in the political process by making the registration and 
     voting process more accessible.
       We applaud Members of Congress for introducing bipartisan 
     legislation that would modernize the VRA. The Voting Rights 
     Amendment Act, H.R. 885, and the Voting Rights Advancement 
     Act, H.R. 2867, would ensure that discriminatory policies do 
     not taint our political process, and that elections are 
     instead open to all Americans regardless of their race, 
     ethnicity, or linguistic ability. We look forward to working 
     with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to 
     advance legislation that strengthens protection of the fair 
     and equal opportunity to vote, and safeguards the integrity 
     of our democracy for the long term.

                          ____________________