Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 195 (Friday, December 6, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 195 (Friday, December 6, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9308-H9330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1030
VOTING RIGHTS ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 2019

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 741, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the
criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are
subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 741, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed
in part A of House Report 116-322, is adopted and the bill, as amended,
is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 4

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Voting Rights Advancement
Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. VIOLATIONS TRIGGERING AUTHORITY OF COURT TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION.

(a) Types of Violations.--Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(c)) is amended by striking
``violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment'' and
inserting ``violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment,
violations of this Act, or violations of any Federal law that
prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race,
color, or membership in a language minority group,''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3(a) of such Act (52
U.S.C. 10302(a)) is amended by striking ``violations of the
fourteenth or fifteenth amendment'' and inserting
``violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment, violations of
this Act, or violations of any Federal law that prohibits
discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group,''.

SEC. 3. CRITERIA FOR COVERAGE OF STATES AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS.

(a) Determination of States and Political Subdivisions
Subject to Section 4(a).--
(1) In general.--Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 (52 U.S.C. 10303(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Determination of States and Political Subdivisions
Subject to Requirements.--
``(1) Existence of voting rights violations during previous
25 years.--
``(A) Statewide application.--Subsection (a) applies with
respect to a State and all political subdivisions within the
State during a calendar year if--
``(i) 15 or more voting rights violations occurred in the
State during the previous 25 calendar years; or
``(ii) 10 or more voting rights violations occurred in the
State during the previous 25 calendar years, at least one of
which was committed by the State itself (as opposed to a
political subdivision within the State).
``(B) Application to specific political subdivisions.--
Subsection (a) applies with respect to a political
subdivision as a separate unit during a calendar year if 3 or
more voting rights violations occurred in the subdivision
during the previous 25 calendar years.
``(2) Period of application.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
if, pursuant to paragraph (1), subsection (a) applies with
respect to a State or political subdivision during a calendar
year, subsection (a) shall apply with respect to such State
or political subdivision for the period--
``(i) that begins on January 1 of the year in which
subsection (a) applies; and
``(ii) that ends on the date which is 10 years after the
date described in clause (i).
``(B) No further application after declaratory judgment.--
``(i) States.--If a State obtains a declaratory judgment
under subsection (a), and the judgment remains in effect,
subsection (a) shall no longer apply to such State pursuant
to paragraph (1)(A) unless, after the issuance of the
declaratory judgment, paragraph (1)(A) applies to the State
solely on the basis of voting rights violations occurring
after the issuance of the declaratory judgment.
``(ii) Political subdivisions.--If a political subdivision
obtains a declaratory judgment under subsection (a), and the
judgment remains in effect, subsection (a) shall no longer
apply to such political subdivision pursuant to paragraph
(1), including pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) (relating to the
statewide application of subsection (a)), unless, after the
issuance of the declaratory judgment, paragraph (1)(B)
applies to the political subdivision solely on the basis of
voting rights violations occurring after the issuance of the
declaratory judgment.
``(3) Determination of voting rights violation.--For
purposes of paragraph (1), a voting rights violation occurred
in a State or political subdivision if any of the following
applies:
``(A) Final judgment; violation of the 14th or 15th
amendment.--In a final judgment (which has not been reversed
on appeal), any court of the United States has determined
that a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of
the United States to vote on account of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group, in violation of the
14th or 15th Amendment, occurred anywhere within the State or
subdivision.
``(B) Final judgment; violations of this act.--In a final
judgment (which has not been reversed on appeal), any court
of the United States has determined that a voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice, or procedure with respect to voting was imposed or
applied or would have been imposed or applied anywhere within
the State or subdivision in a manner that resulted or would
have resulted in a denial or abridgement of the right of any
citizen of the United States to vote on account of race,
color, or membership in a language minority group, in
violation of subsection (e) or (f), or section 2 or 203 of
this Act.
``(C) Final judgment; denial of declaratory judgment.--In a
final judgment (which has not been reversed on appeal), any
court of the United States has denied the request of the

[[Page H9309]]

State or subdivision for a declaratory judgment under section
3(c) or section 5, and thereby prevented a voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice, or procedure with respect to voting from being
enforced anywhere within the State or subdivision.
``(D) Objection by the attorney general.--The Attorney
General has interposed an objection under section 3(c) or
section 5 (and the objection has not been overturned by a
final judgment of a court or withdrawn by the Attorney
General), and thereby prevented a voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure
with respect to voting from being enforced anywhere within
the State or subdivision.
``(E) Consent decree, settlement, or other agreement.--A
consent decree, settlement, or other agreement was entered
into, which resulted in the alteration or abandonment of a
voting practice anywhere in the territory of such State that
was challenged on the ground that the practice denied or
abridged the right of any citizen of the United States to
vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language
minority group in violation of subsection (e) or (f), or
section 2 or 203 of this Act, or the 14th or 15th Amendment.
``(4) Timing of determinations.--
``(A) Determinations of voting rights violations.--As early
as practicable during each calendar year, the Attorney
General shall make the determinations required by this
subsection, including updating the list of voting rights
violations occurring in each State and political subdivision
for the previous calendar year.
``(B) Effective upon publication in federal register.--A
determination or certification of the Attorney General under
this section or under section 8 or 13 shall be effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 4(a) of such Act (52
U.S.C. 10303(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the first sentence of the matter
preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``any State with
respect to which'' and all that follows through ``unless''
and inserting ``any State to which this subsection applies
during a calendar year pursuant to determinations made under
subsection (b), or in any political subdivision of such State
(as such subdivision existed on the date such determinations
were made with respect to such State), though such
determinations were not made with respect to such subdivision
as a separate unit, or in any political subdivision with
respect to which this subsection applies during a calendar
year pursuant to determinations made with respect to such
subdivision as a separate unit under subsection (b),
unless'';
(B) in paragraph (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking the second sentence;
(C) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``(in the case of a
State or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the
second sentence of this subsection)'';
(D) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``(in the case of a
State or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the
second sentence of this subsection)'';
(E) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(in the case of a State
or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the
second sentence of this subsection)'';
(F) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(in the case of a State
or subdivision which sought a declaratory judgment under the
second sentence of this subsection)'';
(G) by striking paragraphs (7) and (8); and
(H) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (7).
(b) Clarification of Treatment of Members of Language
Minority Groups.--Section 4(a)(1) of such Act (52 U.S.C.
10303(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``race or color,'' and
inserting ``race, color, or in contravention of the
guarantees of subsection (f)(2),''.

SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
SUBJECT TO PRECLEARANCE FOR COVERED PRACTICES.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.) is
further amended by inserting after section 4 the following:

``SEC. 4A. DETERMINATION OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
SUBJECT TO PRECLEARANCE FOR COVERED PRACTICES.

``(a) Practice-Based Preclearance.--
``(1) In general.--Each State and each political
subdivision shall--
``(A) identify any newly enacted or adopted law,
regulation, or policy that includes a voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting, or a standard, practice, or procedure
with respect to voting, that is a covered practice described
in subsection (b); and
``(B) ensure that no such covered practice is implemented
unless or until the State or political subdivision, as the
case may be, complies with subsection (c).
``(2) Determinations of characteristics of voting-age
population.--
``(A) In general.--As early as practicable during each
calendar year, the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Director of the Bureau of the Census and the heads of other
relevant offices of the government, shall make the
determinations required by this section regarding voting-age
populations and the characteristics of such populations, and
shall publish a list of the States and political subdivisions
to which a voting-age population characteristic described in
subsection (b) applies.
``(B) Publication in the federal register.--A determination
or certification of the Attorney General under this paragraph
shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
``(b) Covered Practices.--To assure that the right of
citizens of the United States to vote is not denied or
abridged on account of race, color, or membership in a
language minority group as a result of the implementation of
certain qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or
standards, practices, or procedures with respect to voting
newly adopted in a State or political subdivision, the
following shall be covered practices subject to the
requirements described in subsection (a):
``(1) Changes to method of election.--Any change to the
method of election--
``(A) to add seats elected at-large in a State or political
subdivision where--
``(i) 2 or more racial groups or language minority groups
each represent 20 percent or more of the political
subdivision's voting-age population; or
``(ii) a single language minority group represents 20
percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands
located in whole or in part in the political subdivision; or
``(B) to convert one or more seats elected from a single-
member district to one or more at-large seats or seats from a
multi-member district in a State or political subdivision
where--
``(i) 2 or more racial groups or language minority groups
each represent 20 percent or more of the political
subdivision's voting-age population; or
``(ii) a single language minority group represents 20
percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands
located in whole or in part in the political subdivision.
``(2) Changes to jurisdiction boundaries.--Any change or
series of changes within a year to the boundaries of a
jurisdiction that reduces by 3 or more percentage points the
proportion of the jurisdiction's voting-age population that
is comprised of members of a single racial group or language
minority group in a State or political subdivision where--
``(A) 2 or more racial groups or language minority groups
each represent 20 percent or more of the political
subdivision's voting-age population; or
``(B) a single language minority group represents 20
percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands
located in whole or in part in the political subdivision.
``(3) Changes through redistricting.--Any change to the
boundaries of election districts in a State or political
subdivision where any racial group or language minority group
experiences a population increase, over the preceding decade
(as calculated by the Bureau of the Census under the most
recent decennial census), of at least--
``(A) 10,000; or
``(B) 20 percent of voting-age population of the State or
political subdivision, as the case may be.
``(4) Changes in documentation or qualifications to vote.--
Any change to requirements for documentation or proof of
identity to vote such that the requirements will exceed or be
more stringent than the requirements for voting that are
described in section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (52 U.S.C. 21083(b)) or any change to the requirements
for documentation or proof of identity to register to vote
that will exceed or be more stringent than such requirements
under State law on the day before the date of enactment of
the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019.
``(5) Changes to multilingual voting materials.--Any change
that reduces multilingual voting materials or alters the
manner in which such materials are provided or distributed,
where no similar reduction or alteration occurs in materials
provided in English for such election.
``(6) Changes that reduce, consolidate, or relocate voting
locations or reduce voting opportunities.--Any change that
reduces, consolidates, or relocates voting locations,
including early, absentee, and election-day voting locations,
or reduces days or hours of in person voting on any Sunday
during a period occurring prior to the date of an election
during which voters may cast ballots in such election--
``(A) in 1 or more census tracts wherein 2 or more language
minority groups or racial groups each represent 20 percent or
more of the voting-age population of the political
subdivision; or
``(B) on Indian lands wherein at least 20 percent of the
voting-age population belongs to a single language minority
group.
(7) New list maintenance process.--Any change to the
maintenance of voter registration lists that adds a new basis
for removal from the list of active registered voters or that
puts in place a new process for removing a name from the list
of active registered voters--
``(A) in the case of a political subdivision imposing such
change if--
``(i) 2 or more racial groups or language minority groups
each represent 20 percent or more of the voting-age
population of the political subdivision; or
``(ii) a single language minority group represents 20
percent of more of the voting-age population on Indian lands
located in whole or in part in the political subdivision; or
``(B) in the case of a State imposing such change, if 2 or
more racial groups or language minority groups each represent
20 percent of more of the voting-age population of--
``(i) the State; or
``(ii) a political subdivision in the State, except that
the requirements under subsections (a) and (c) shall apply
only with respect to each such political subdivision.
``(c) Preclearance.--
``(1) In general.--Whenever a State or political
subdivision with respect to which the requirements set forth
in subsection (a) are in effect shall enact, adopt, or seek
to implement any covered practice described under subsection
(b), such State or subdivision may institute an action in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia for
a declaratory judgment that such covered practice neither has
the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or

[[Page H9310]]

abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group, and unless and until
the court enters such judgment such covered practice shall
not be implemented. Notwithstanding the previous sentence,
such covered practice may be implemented without such
proceeding if the covered practice has been submitted by the
chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such
State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney
General has not interposed an objection within 60 days after
such submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an
expedited approval within 60 days after such submission, the
Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such
objection will not be made. Neither an affirmative indication
by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor
the Attorney General's failure to object, nor a declaratory
judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent
action to enjoin implementation of such covered practice. In
the event the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that
no objection will be made within the 60-day period following
receipt of a submission, the Attorney General may reserve the
right to reexamine the submission if additional information
comes to the Attorney General's attention during the
remainder of the 60-day period which would otherwise require
objection in accordance with this section. Any action under
this section shall be heard and determined by a court of
three judges in accordance with the provisions of section
2284 of title 28, United States Code, and any appeal shall
lie to the Supreme Court.
``(2) Denying or abridging the right to vote.--Any covered
practice described in subsection (b) that has the purpose of
or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any
citizens of the United States on account of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group, to elect their
preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right
to vote within the meaning of paragraph (1) of this
subsection.
``(3) Purpose defined.--The term `purpose' in paragraphs
(1) and (2) of this subsection shall include any
discriminatory purpose.
``(4) Purpose of paragraph (2).--The purpose of paragraph
(2) of this subsection is to protect the ability of such
citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice.
``(d) Enforcement.--The Attorney General or any aggrieved
citizen may file an action in a Federal district court to
compel any State or political subdivision to satisfy the
obligations set forth in this section. Such actions shall be
heard and determined by a court of 3 judges under section
2284 of title 28, United States Code. In any such action, the
court shall provide as a remedy that any voting qualification
or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or
procedure with respect to voting, that is the subject of the
action under this subsection be enjoined unless the court
determines that--
``(1) the voting qualification or prerequisite to voting,
or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting,
is not a covered practice described in subsection (b); or
``(2) the State or political subdivision has complied with
subsection (c) with respect to the covered practice at issue.
``(e) Counting of Racial Groups and Language Minority
Groups.--For purposes of this section, the calculation of the
population of a racial group or a language minority group
shall be carried out using the methodology in the guidance
promulgated in the Federal Register on February 9, 2011 (76
Fed. Reg. 7470).
``(f) Special Rule.--For purposes of determinations under
this section, any data provided by the Bureau of the Census,
whether based on estimation from sample or actual
enumeration, shall not be subject to challenge or review in
any court.
``(g) Multilingual Voting Materials.--In this section, the
term `multilingual voting materials' means registration or
voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other
materials or information relating to the electoral process,
including ballots, provided in the language or languages of
one or more language minority groups.''.

SEC. 5. PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY TO ENFORCE THE VOTING RIGHTS
ACT.

(a) Transparency.--
(1) In general.--The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C.
10301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 5 the
following new section:

``SEC. 6. TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CHANGES TO PROTECT VOTING
RIGHTS.

``(a) Notice of Enacted Changes.--
``(1) Notice of changes.--If a State or political
subdivision makes any change in any prerequisite to voting or
standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting in
any election for Federal office that will result in the
prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure being
different from that which was in effect as of 180 days before
the date of the election for Federal office, the State or
political subdivision shall provide reasonable public notice
in such State or political subdivision and on the Internet,
of a concise description of the change, including the
difference between the changed prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure and the prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure which was previously in effect. The
public notice described in this paragraph, in such State or
political subdivision and on the Internet, shall be in a
format that is reasonably convenient and accessible to voters
with disabilities, including voters who have low vision or
are blind.
``(2) Deadline for notice.--A State or political
subdivision shall provide the public notice required under
paragraph (1) not later than 48 hours after making the change
involved.
``(b) Transparency Regarding Polling Place Resources.--
``(1) In general.--In order to identify any changes that
may impact the right to vote of any person, prior to the 30th
day before the date of an election for Federal office, each
State or political subdivision with responsibility for
allocating registered voters, voting machines, and official
poll workers to particular precincts and polling places shall
provide reasonable public notice in such State or political
subdivision and on the Internet, of the information described
in paragraph (2) for precincts and polling places within such
State or political subdivision. The public notice described
in this paragraph, in such State or political subdivision and
on the Internet, shall be in a format that is reasonably
convenient and accessible to voters with disabilities
including voters who have low vision or are blind.
``(2) Information described.--The information described in
this paragraph with respect to a precinct or polling place is
each of the following:
``(A) The name or number.
``(B) In the case of a polling place, the location,
including the street address, and whether such polling place
is accessible to persons with disabilities.
``(C) The voting-age population of the area served by the
precinct or polling place, broken down by demographic group
if such breakdown is reasonably available to such State or
political subdivision.
``(D) The number of registered voters assigned to the
precinct or polling place, broken down by demographic group
if such breakdown is reasonably available to such State or
political subdivision.
``(E) The number of voting machines assigned, including the
number of voting machines accessible to voters with
disabilities, including voters who have low vision or are
blind.
``(F) The number of official paid poll workers assigned.
``(G) The number of official volunteer poll workers
assigned.
``(H) In the case of a polling place, the dates and hours
of operation.
``(3) Updates in information reported.--If a State or
political subdivision makes any change in any of the
information described in paragraph (2), the State or
political subdivision shall provide reasonable public notice
in such State or political subdivision and on the Internet,
of the change in the information not later than 48 hours
after the change occurs or, if the change occurs fewer than
48 hours before the date of the election for Federal office,
as soon as practicable after the change occurs. The public
notice described in this paragraph in such State or political
subdivision and on the Internet shall be in a format that is
reasonably convenient and accessible to voters with
disabilities including voters who have low vision or are
blind.
``(c) Transparency of Changes Relating to Demographics and
Electoral Districts.--
``(1) Requiring public notice of changes.--Not later than
10 days after making any change in the constituency that will
participate in an election for Federal, State, or local
office or the boundaries of a voting unit or electoral
district in an election for Federal, State, or local office
(including through redistricting, reapportionment, changing
from at-large elections to district-based elections, or
changing from district-based elections to at-large
elections), a State or political subdivision shall provide
reasonable public notice in such State or political
subdivision and on the Internet, of the demographic and
electoral data described in paragraph (3) for each of the
geographic areas described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Geographic areas described.--The geographic areas
described in this paragraph are as follows:
``(A) The State as a whole, if the change applies
statewide, or the political subdivision as a whole, if the
change applies across the entire political subdivision.
``(B) If the change includes a plan to replace or eliminate
voting units or electoral districts, each voting unit or
electoral district that will be replaced or eliminated.
``(C) If the change includes a plan to establish new voting
units or electoral districts, each such new voting unit or
electoral district.
``(3) Demographic and electoral data.--The demographic and
electoral data described in this paragraph with respect to a
geographic area described in paragraph (2) are each of the
following:
``(A) The voting-age population, broken down by demographic
group.
``(B) If it is reasonably available to the State or
political subdivision involved, an estimate of the population
of the area which consists of citizens of the United States
who are 18 years of age or older, broken down by demographic
group.
``(C) The number of registered voters, broken down by
demographic group if such breakdown is reasonably available
to the State or political subdivision involved.
``(D)(i) If the change applies to a State, the actual
number of votes, or (if it is not reasonably practicable for
the State to ascertain the actual number of votes) the
estimated number of votes received by each candidate in each
statewide election held during the 5-year period which ends
on the date the change involved is made; and
``(ii) if the change applies to only one political
subdivision, the actual number of votes, or (if it is not
reasonably practicable for the political subdivision to
ascertain the actual number of votes) in each subdivision-
wide election held during the 5-year period which ends on the
date the change involved is made.
``(4) Voluntary compliance by smaller jurisdictions.--
Compliance with this subsection shall be voluntary for a
political subdivision of a State unless the subdivision is
one of the following:
``(A) A county or parish.
``(B) A municipality with a population greater than 10,000,
as determined by the Bureau of the Census under the most
recent decennial census.

[[Page H9311]]

``(C) A school district with a population greater than
10,000, as determined by the Bureau of the Census under the
most recent decennial census. For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `school district' means the geographic
area under the jurisdiction of a local educational agency (as
defined in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965).
``(d) Rules Regarding Format of Information.--The Attorney
General may issue rules specifying a reasonably convenient
and accessible format that States and political subdivisions
shall use to provide public notice of information under this
section.
``(e) No Denial of Right to Vote.--The right to vote of any
person shall not be denied or abridged because the person
failed to comply with any change made by a State or political
subdivision to a voting qualification, standard, practice, or
procedure if the State or political subdivision involved did
not meet the applicable requirements of this section with
respect to the change.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `demographic group' means each group which
section 2 protects from the denial or abridgement of the
right to vote on account of race or color, or in
contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2);
``(2) the term `election for Federal office' means any
general, special, primary, or runoff election held solely or
in part for the purpose of electing any candidate for the
office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector,
Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, or Delegate
or Resident Commissioner to the Congress; and
``(3) the term `persons with disabilities', means
individuals with a disability, as defined in section 3 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 3(a) of such Act (52
U.S.C. 10302(a)) is amended by striking ``in accordance with
section 6''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection
(a)(1) shall apply with respect to changes which are made on
or after the expiration of the 60-day period which begins on
the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN OBSERVERS.

(a) Clarification of Authority in Political Subdivisions
Subject to Preclearance.--Section 8(a)(2)(B) of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10305(a)(2)(B)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) in the Attorney General's judgment, the assignment of
observers is otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees of
the 14th or 15th Amendment or any provision of this Act or
any other Federal law protecting the right of citizens of the
United States to vote; or''.
(b) Assignment of Observers To Enforce Bilingual Election
Requirements.--Section 8(a) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 10305(a))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) the Attorney General certifies with respect to a
political subdivision that--
``(A) the Attorney General has received written meritorious
complaints from residents, elected officials, or civic
participation organizations that efforts to violate section
203 are likely to occur; or
``(B) in the Attorney General's judgment, the assignment of
observers is necessary to enforce the guarantees of section
203;''; and
(3) by moving the margin for the continuation text
following paragraph (3), as added by paragraph (2) of this
subsection, two ems to the left.

SEC. 7. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

(a) Clarification of Scope and Persons Authorized To Seek
Relief.--Section 12(d) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52
U.S.C. 10308(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``section 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, or
subsection (b) of this section'' and inserting ``the 14th or
15th Amendment, this Act, or any Federal voting rights law
that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group''; and
(2) by striking ``the Attorney General may institute for
the United States, or in the name of the United States,'' and
inserting ``the aggrieved person or (in the name of the
United States) the Attorney General may institute''.
(b) Grounds for Granting Relief.--Section 12(d) of such Act
(52 U.S.C. 10308(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(d) Whenever any person'' and inserting
``(d)(1) Whenever any person'';
(2) by striking ``(1) to permit'' and inserting ``(A) to
permit'';
(3) by striking ``(2) to count'' and inserting ``(B) to
count''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2)(A) In any action for preliminary relief described in
this subsection, the court shall grant the relief if the
court determines that the complainant has raised a serious
question whether the challenged voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure
violates this Act or the Constitution and, on balance, the
hardship imposed upon the defendant by the grant of the
relief will be less than the hardship which would be imposed
upon the plaintiff if the relief were not granted. In
balancing the harms, the court shall give due weight to the
fundamental right to cast an effective ballot.
``(B) In making its determination under this paragraph with
respect to a change in any voting qualification, prerequisite
to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect
to voting, the court shall consider all relevant factors and
give due weight to the following factors, if they are
present:
``(i) Whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure in effect prior to the change was
adopted as a remedy for a Federal court judgment, consent
decree, or admission regarding--
``(I) discrimination on the basis of race or color in
violation of the 14th or 15th Amendment;
``(II) a violation of this Act; or
``(III) voting discrimination on the basis of race, color,
or membership in a language minority group in violation of
any other Federal or State law.
``(ii) Whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure in effect prior to the change served
as a ground for the dismissal or settlement of a claim
alleging--
``(I) discrimination on the basis of race or color in
violation of the 14th or 15th Amendment;
``(II) a violation of this Act; or
``(III) voting discrimination on the basis of race, color,
or membership in a language minority group in violation of
any other Federal or State law.
``(iii) Whether the change was adopted fewer than 180 days
before the date of the election with respect to which the
change is to take effect.
``(iv) Whether the defendant has failed to provide timely
or complete notice of the adoption of the change as required
by applicable Federal or State law.''.
(c) Grounds for Stay or Interlocutory Appeal.--Section
12(d) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 10308(d)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) A jurisdiction's inability to enforce its voting or
election laws, regulations, policies, or redistricting plans,
standing alone, shall not be deemed to constitute irreparable
harm to the public interest or to the interests of a
defendant in an action arising under the U.S. Constitution or
any Federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of
race, color, or membership in a language minority group in
the voting process, for the purposes of determining whether a
stay of a court's order or an interlocutory appeal under
section 1253 of title 28, United States Code, is
warranted.''.

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

Title I of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301)
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 21. DEFINITIONS.

``In this Act:
``(1) Indian.--The term `Indian' has the meaning given the
term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act.
``(2) Indian lands.--The term `Indian lands' means--
``(A) any Indian country of an Indian tribe, as such term
is defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code;
``(B) any land in Alaska that is owned, pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, by an Indian tribe that
is a Native village (as such term is defined in section 3 of
such Act), or by a Village Corporation that is associated
with the Indian tribe (as such term is defined in section 3
of such Act);
``(C) any land on which the seat of government of the
Indian tribe is located; and
``(D) any land that is part or all of a tribal designated
statistical area associated with the Indian tribe, or is part
or all of an Alaska Native village statistical area
associated with the tribe, as defined by the Bureau of the
Census for the purposes of the most recent decennial census.
``(3) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' or `tribe' has
the meaning given the term `Indian tribe' in section 4 of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
``(4) Tribal government.--The term `Tribal Government'
means the recognized governing body of an Indian Tribe.
``(5) Voting-age population.--The term `voting-age
population' means the numerical size of the population within
a State, within a political subdivision, or within a
political subdivision that contains Indian lands, as the case
may be, that consists of persons age 18 or older, as
calculated by the Bureau of the Census under the most recent
decennial census.''.

SEC. 9. ATTORNEYS' FEES.

Section 14(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C.
10310(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The term `prevailing party' means a party to an
action that receives at least some of the benefit sought by
such action, states a colorable claim, and can establish that
the action was a significant cause of a change to the status
quo.''.

SEC. 10. OTHER TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Actions Covered Under Section 3.--Section 3(c) of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``any proceeding instituted by the Attorney
General or an aggrieved person under any statute to enforce''
and inserting ``any action under any statute in which a party
(including the Attorney General) seeks to enforce''; and
(2) by striking ``at the time the proceeding was
commenced'' and inserting ``at the time the action was
commenced''.
(b) Clarification of Treatment of Members of Language
Minority Groups.--Section 4(f) of such Act (52 U.S.C.
10303(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking the second sentence; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
(c) Period During Which Changes in Voting Practices Are
Subject to Preclearance Under Section 5.--Section 5 of such
Act (52 U.S.C. 10304) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``based upon
determinations made under the first sentence of

[[Page H9312]]

section 4(b) are in effect'' and inserting ``are in effect
during a calendar year'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``November 1, 1964'' and
all that follows through ``November 1, 1972'' and inserting
``the applicable date of coverage''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) The term `applicable date of coverage' means, with
respect to a State or political subdivision--
``(1) June 25, 2013, if the most recent determination for
such State or subdivision under section 4(b) was made on or
before December 31, 2019; or
``(2) the date on which the most recent determination for
such State or subdivision under section 4(b) was made, if
such determination was made after December 31, 2019.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

General Leave

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on H.R. 4.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights
Advancement Act of 2019.
H.R. 4 is comprehensive and much-needed legislation to restore the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 to its full vitality. This bill responds to
the Supreme Court's disastrous 2013 decision in Shelby County v.
Holder, which effectively gutted the act's most important enforcement
mechanism, section 5, which requires jurisdictions with a history of
racial discrimination in voting to obtain Justice Department or Federal
court approval before any changes to their voting laws can take effect.
The Court struck down the coverage formula that determined which
jurisdictions would be subject to preclearance, but it expressly said
that Congress could draft another formula based on current conditions.
That, among other things, is exactly what H.R. 4 does.
This bill is the result of an extensive process that included 18
hearings before three different House committees. This process
developed a record demonstrating that States and localities and, in
particular, those that were formerly subject to preclearance, have
engaged in various voter suppression tactics, such as imposing
burdensome proof of citizenship laws, polling place closures, purges of
voter rolls, and significant scale-backs to early voting periods.
These kinds of voting restrictions have a disproportionate and
negative impact on racial and language minority voters and deprive them
of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.
In short, the record is clear that substantial voter suppression
exists across the country and that H.R. 4's coverage formula is
necessary to address this discrimination.
This legislation not only updates the existing formula to ensure that
it accounts for current conditions, but it is also designed so that the
formula will update itself regularly as conditions change, thereby
directly responding to the Court's concern in Shelby County.
Not surprisingly, the suspension of preclearance unleashed a deluge
of voter suppression laws across the Nation, making restoration of this
tool even more necessary.
As we consider the record and the need for H.R. 4, it is worth
remembering why Congress enacted preclearance in the first place.
Before the Voting Rights Act, we saw, essentially, a game of whack-a-
mole in which States and localities could engage in voter suppression,
secure in the knowledge that any discriminatory law that was struck
down by a court could quickly be replaced by another. Preclearance
successfully put an end to this game of whack-a-mole.
I want to thank Terri Sewell for crafting this important legislation
and for her efforts over the last several years on this bill.
I also want to recognize the leadership of Marcia Fudge, chair of the
House Administration's Subcommittee on Elections, for her extraordinary
work in conducting numerous field hearings examining voting problems
around the country, as well as Constitution Subcommittee Chairman
Steve Cohen, who presided over many hearings in the Judiciary Committee
to develop the substantial record on which this legislation is based.
The Voting Rights Act represents one of the Nation's most important
civil rights victories, one achieved by those who marched, struggled,
and even died to secure the right to vote for all Americans. I urge my
colleagues to honor their sacrifices and to enable section 5 once again
to protect the rights of all Americans to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) control the remainder of the time on the majority
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is of paramount importance in a
democracy, and its protection from discriminatory barriers has been
grounded in Federal law since the Civil War and, more recently, in the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
A Supreme Court decision called Shelby County will be mentioned here
many times today.
And, also, I want to say, it has been mentioned many times that the
Supreme Court directed or instructed this body to do something. They
did not. What they did say in the decision was that, if Congress wants
to, they can revisit this. And, as we could on most anything, we are
revisiting. But to say that we were directed to is a little bit of an
overstatement and just needs to be clarified.
It is important to remember that this Supreme Court decision only
struck down one outdated provision of the Voting Rights Act, namely, an
outdated formula based on decades-old data that doesn't hold true
anymore, describing which jurisdictions had to get approval from the
Department of Justice before their voting rules went into effect.
It is important to point out that other very important provisions of
the Voting Rights Act remain in place and were not changed, including
section 2 and section 3.

Section 2 applies nationwide and prohibits voting practices or
procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or the
ability to speak English. Section 2 is enforced through Federal
lawsuits, just like other Federal civil rights laws. The United States
and civil rights organizations have brought many cases to enforce the
guarantees of section 2 in court, and they may do so in the future.
Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act also remains in place. Section 3
authorizes Federal courts to impose preclearance requirements on States
and political subdivisions that have enacted voting procedures that
treat people differently based on race in violation of the 14th and
15th Amendments.
If a State or political subdivision is found by the Federal courts to
have treated people differently based on race, then the court has
discretion to retain supervisory jurisdiction and impose preclearance
requirements on the State or political subdivision, as the court sees
fit, until a future date, at the court's discretion.
This means that such a State or political subdivision would have to
submit all future voting rule changes for approval to either the court
itself or the Department of Justice before such rule changes could go
into effect.
As set out in the Code of Federal Regulations: ``Under section 3(c)
of the Voting Rights Act, a court, in voting rights litigation, can
order as relief that a jurisdiction not subject to the preclearance
requirement of section 5 preclear its voting changes by submitting them
either to the court or to the Attorney General.''
Again, section 3's procedures remain available today to those
challenging voting rules as discriminatory. Just a couple of years ago,
for example, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal issued an opinion
in a redistricting

[[Page H9313]]

case that required the city of Pasadena, Texas, to be monitored by the
Justice Department because it had intentionally changed its city
council districts to decrease Hispanic influence.
The city, which the court ruled has a ``long history of
discrimination against minorities,'' was required to have their future
voting rules changes precleared by the Department of Justice for the
next 6 years, during which time the Federal judge ``retains
jurisdiction . . . to review before enforcement any change to the
election map or plan that was in effect in Pasadena on December 1,
2013.''
A change to the city's election plan can be enforced without review
by the judge only if it is submitted to the U.S. Attorney General and
the Department of Justice and has not objected within 60 days.
Voting rights are protected in this country, including in my own
State of Georgia, where Latino and African American voter turnout has
soared. Between 2014 and 2018, voter turnout increased by double
digits, both for men and women in both of these communities, and we are
committed to ensuring the ballot box is open to all eligible voters.
We are committed to ensuring constitutional means are used to
accomplish that. We are committed to protecting the value of every
American voice by securing our elections from fraud. These are our
priorities and our principles.
Full protections are afforded under current Federal law for all those
with valid claims of discrimination in voting. Unfortunately, the bill
before us today would turn those Federal shields that protect voters
into political weapons. This bill would essentially federalize State
and local election laws when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever
that those States or localities engaged in any discriminatory behavior
when it comes to voting.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that this type of Federal control
over State and local elections is unconstitutional because Congress can
only do that when there is proof of actual discrimination, which is
what the bill is supposed to be about.
House Democrats continue their breakneck speed of everything else
that we have going on, and now, today, a partisan bill comes to the
floor to prevent States from running their own State and local
elections when we are dealing with this very issue of impeachment and
discussing elections at the same time.
When can we stop and ask: What is best for the United States? What is
best for our voters?
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights
Advancement Act of 2019. This critical civil rights bill, the result of
strong leadership by my colleagues, Ms. Terri Sewell and Ms. Marcia
Fudge, will restore the most important enforcement mechanism of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, its preclearance provision, by establishing
a new coverage formula to determine which jurisdictions will be subject
to preclearance.
The Supreme Court, when it struck down the previous preclearance
requirement in 2013, asked Congress to come back with a new
preclearance requirement. That is what we are doing.
This formula is self-updating because it requires a continuous, 25-
year look back to determine whether, at any given moment, a
jurisdiction has engaged in such pervasive discrimination so as to
justify imposing a Federal preclearance requirement on any changes to
voting laws that it may make.
This formula reflects the substantial evidentiary record developed in
numerous hearings before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, of which I am honored
to serve as chair, and other committees of this House.
In short, it reflects current conditions and demonstrates the current
need for preclearance. It is, therefore, responsive to the Supreme
Court's reasoning in Shelby County v. Holder that wrongfully, in my
view, struck down the VRA's previous coverage formula.

Maya Angelou told us: ``When somebody shows you who they are, believe
them. . . .'' This is what the court does with the preclearance. When
they show you that they are going to discriminate against people and
try to make it harder for people to vote, believe them and make it more
difficult and make them come on the front end and show what they are
doing is right.
We have heard from my colleagues some of the egregious examples of
continuing and perverse voter suppression efforts by States and
localities since Shelby County, particularly those that used to be
subject to preclearance under the old formula. These include poll
closures and relocations, changes in district boundaries, voter purges,
and barriers to voter registration that target racial and language
minority voters.
I want to take this opportunity to respond to one of the main
arguments my Republican colleagues have raised. We keep hearing from
them that H.R. 4 would represent an unconstitutional Federal takeover
of State and local elections.
Born in the South, I can tell you that this argument is old wine in a
new bottle. It is what previous generations called ``States' rights,''
a loaded term that was used by segregationists and, before them, by the
defenders of slavery to justify a legal regime of white supremacy and
racial ideology that said African Americans were, at best, second-class
citizens and, at worst, less than human beings.
From slavery, to Jim Crow, to what we have today: States' rights.
The Civil War and the 14th and 15th Amendments that followed settled
the question that the other side raises by fundamentally reordering the
relationship between Congress and the States, making it clear that
Congress not only had the power, but the duty, to intervene against
States when they engaged in racial discrimination to deny racial
minorities the right to vote.
And States did it and did it and did it, and most of them were in the
South, and most of them screamed, ``States' rights.''
Do not be fooled by the argument that H.R. 4 somehow exceeds our
constitutional authority to address racial discrimination in voting.
The other side will say that the Reconstruction Amendments prohibit
only intentional discrimination and that, to the extent that H.R. 4
also addresses discriminatory effects of voter suppression tactics, we
are not allowed to address those in this bill.
The Supreme Court, in City of Rome v. U.S., made clear that our
authority under the 15th Amendment allows us to do just that, and that
is what we should do.
H.R. 4 represents exactly what the Reconstruction Amendments
contemplated: Congress intervening against States in the face of
overwhelming evidence of continuing racial discrimination in voting.
We must not shirk our constitutional duty. We must pass H.R. 4.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Fudge), who is an invaluable part of this work in the House
Administration Committee and had a special committee to work on this.
This is very close to her heart.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I remember well the day I stood here and raised my right
hand and swore before God and country that I would support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
If you believe in the oath you took and they were not just empty
words, you must vote to support H.R. 4.
If you believe that Black and Brown people, Asian citizens, Native
Americans, language minorities, students, the poor, rural and urban
citizens are part of ``we, the people,'' you must vote to support H.R.
4.
To quote our former colleague, the Honorable Barbara Jordan: ``We,
the people. . . . I was not included in that `We, the people.' . . .
But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court
decision, I . . . am finally . . . included in `We, the people.'''
She went on to say: ``My faith in the Constitution is whole. It is
complete. It

[[Page H9314]]

is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the
diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.''
The Constitution is the very foundation of our democracy. If your
faith in the Constitution is whole, complete, and total, you must vote
for H.R. 4.
Sadly, the United States has a long, dark history of denying or
restricting the right of people to vote who look like me.
The Black Brigade of Cincinnati, the Buffalo Soldiers, the Tuskegee
Airmen, they protected, fought, and many died for this country, but
their ability to vote was either outlawed or suppressed.

{time} 1045

John Lewis and Dr. King were attacked. Fannie Lou Hamer was
brutally beaten, and Medgar Evers was shot down in his very own
driveway.
We, the people.
The 14th Amendment says that: ``All persons born or naturalized in
the United States . . . , are citizens. . . . No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges . . . of citizens. .
. .''
The 15th Amendment guarantees: ``The right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.''
We are all we, the people.
The 24th Amendment prohibits the payment of poll and other taxes to
vote. I believe that the purchase of unnecessary forms of
identification and payment of fines and fees are just other forms of
poll taxes.
And nowhere in the Constitution does it say, if you do not vote in
one election, you lose your right to vote. Voting is a right; it is not
a requirement. Your right to vote is not a use-it-or-lose-it situation.
In my opinion, purging is a constitutional violation.
The same goes for closing polling places and moving them so far that
it takes hours to travel there and back, or reducing early voting hours
such that it discriminates against those who use those shortened hours.
I implore you not to place party over patriotism, wrong over right. I
ask you to do the right thing. Our Nation needs to know if your faith
in the Constitution is whole, if it is complete, and if it is total.
And if it is, you will vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4.
How many more generations will be required to fight for their
constitutional right to vote?
We are the greatest democracy in the history of the world against
which all other democracies are judged. If your faith in the
Constitution is whole, complete, and total, you must do the right
thing, not the political thing.
Do the right thing. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), the
Republican leader on the House Administration Committee.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend,
the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Collins, for
yielding today.
Today, I rise in opposition of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement
Act of 2019.
I fully support the bipartisan Voting Rights Act, which is still in
place today. However, the bill we are debating today, H.R. 4, is not a
reauthorization of the important, historically bipartisan Voting Rights
Act that has helped to prevent discrimination at the ballot box since
1965.
It has only been since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shelby
County v. Holder that Democrats have decided to politicize the Voting
Rights Act. This landmark decision left the vast majority of the Voting
Rights Act in place today.
The only thing that was struck down from the VRA was the formula that
was using 40-year-old data to determine which States were placed under
the control of the Department of Justice, this process known as
preclearance. The Supreme Court deemed this data and formula was no
longer accurate nor relevant for our country's current climate.
Chief Justice Roberts said: ``The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed
extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem.''
He went on to say that: ``Regardless of how to look at the record, no
one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the `pervasive,'
`flagrant,' `widespread,' and `rampant' discrimination that faced''
this ``Congress,'' this institution, ``in 1965, and that clearly
distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the Nation.''
So what does H.R. 4 do? It doubles down on federalizing elections and
would attempt to put every State and jurisdiction in this country under
preclearance.
The majority has been unable to determine the number of States or
jurisdictions that would be covered by this preclearance if H.R. 4 were
to become law. Apparently, we have to pass this bill before the
American people would know if they would or would not be subjected to
it.
The majority knows H.R. 4 is bad policy that will cripple thousands
of local election officials across the country if it were ever to
become law.
Let me be clear: H.R. 4 is not a Voting Rights Act reauthorization
bill. H.R. 4 is about two things: placing the unnecessary preclearance
requirements on to States, and the Democrats giving the Department of
Justice control over all election activity.
My committee, the Committee on House Administration, has jurisdiction
over Federal election policy, but it does not have jurisdiction over
the Voting Rights Act. That goes to the Judiciary Committee. Despite
that lack of jurisdiction, our Subcommittee on Elections held seven
field hearings and one listening session across this great country on
the Voting Rights Act, encompassing eight different States and over
13,000 miles of air travel.
Even with this gargantuan effort to gather evidence to reinstate the
struck-down formula from the VRA that we are discussing today, the
Democrats were still unable to produce a single voter who wanted to
vote and was unable to cast a ballot.
This isn't a bad thing. It is a fantastic thing. It ought to be
celebrated. We should be celebrating that Americans who wanted to vote
were able to do that, and credit should be given to the Voting Rights
Act for helping to achieve that.
The 2018 midterm election produced the highest voting turnout in four
decades--and that is according to data from our Census Bureau--
especially among minority voters.
The sections of the Voting Rights Act that are currently in effect
are continuing to help safeguard the public from discrimination at the
ballot box. Every eligible American who wants to vote in this country's
elections should be able to cast a ballot. That is why we have the
Voting Rights Act, a great example, until today, of a bipartisan
solution that is still working today to help Americans and protect from
voter discrimination.

I have now seen four election-related bills from the majority come to
this floor, and all of them have the same common theme: catchy titles
and federalizing elections, a responsibility the Constitution gives to
our States.
H.R. 4 is simply more of the same. It is a solution in search of a
problem. That is why I cannot support this legislation.
I ask my colleagues to join me in making sure States maintain control
of their elections.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I ask for unanimous consent so that the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler) can take over the remainder of the time, I would just
like to comment.
I have been in this Congress for 13 years now, and before these
sections were added that the Republicans oppose, there was simply the
Voting Rights Act with a new coverage formula, sponsored by Mr.
Sensenbrenner, and it had but less than 10 Republicans on it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Ms. Sewell), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

[[Page H9315]]

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote,
and nothing is more precious to my district, Alabama's Seventh
Congressional District, than the fight to protect the right to vote for
all Americans.
It was in my district, Birmingham, Montgomery, Marion, and Selma,
that ordinary Americans peacefully protested for the equal right to
vote for African Americans.
Voting is personal to me, not just because I represent Alabama's
Civil Rights District, but because it was on the streets of my hometown
of Selma that foot soldiers shed their blood on the Edmund Pettus
Bridge so that all Americans, regardless of race, could vote.
It was on that same bridge in Selma, Alabama, that our colleague, a
then 26-year-old, John Lewis, was bludgeoned by State troopers with
billy clubs in the name of justice. Their efforts led to the passage of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the seminal and most effective
legislation passed in this Congress to protect the right of all
Americans to vote.
Those protections were gutted in 2013 by the Supreme Court decision
in Shelby v. Holder when the Court ruled that Section 4(b) of the VRA
was unconstitutional, stating that the coverage formula that Congress
adopted was outdated.
Well, today, 6 years after the Shelby decision, Congress is finally
answering the Supreme Court's call to action by passing H.R. 4. H.R. 4
creates a new coverage formula to determine which States will be
subject to the VRA's preclearance requirement that is based on current,
recent evidence of voter discrimination.
In addition, the bill also establishes practice-based preclearance
authority and increases transparency by requiring reasonable notice for
voter changes.
This new voter formula is narrowly tailored to cover the States and
jurisdictions where there has been a resurgence of significant and
pervasive discriminatory voting practices. It does not include those
areas where such preclearance would be considered to be an
unjustifiable burden.
In all, these changes will restore the full strength of the Voting
Rights Act by stopping discrimination before it takes place, as
Congress had intended in the pasting of the VRA.
Mr. Speaker, old battles have become new again. The fight that began
in Selma, Alabama, in 1965 still persists. Yes, Selma is now.
While literacy tests and poll taxes no longer exist, certain States
and local jurisdictions have passed laws that are modern-day barriers
to voting. So as long as voter suppression exists, the need for the
full protections of the VRA will be required, and that is why it is
critically important that we fully restore the protections of the
Voting Rights Act by passing H.R. 4.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Judiciary Committee and the House
Administration's Subcommittee on Elections for hosting the 17 hearings
and collecting the thousands and thousands of pages of documentation
supporting the report on H.R. 4.
Likewise, I include in the Record letters of support for H.R. 4 from
outside groups that detail the existence of current voter suppression.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
December 5, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than one million
active and retired members of the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), I am writing to strongly urge you to vote
'YES' on the Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4).
This legislation is badly needed as the disastrous Supreme
Court's Shelby v. Holder decision has led to the
proliferation of state laws that have made it more difficult
for the American people to exercise their fundamental voting
rights. In the last decade, 25 states have enacted new voting
restrictions, including strict photo ID requirements, early
voting cutbacks, and registration restrictions. Registered
voters have been intentionally purged from voter rolls and
states have closed hundreds of polling stations with a
history of racial discrimination since the court ruled that
they did not need federal approval to change their rules.
These repeated attacks have severely undermined people's
fundamental voting rights, which are the foundational
principles of our representative democracy.
H.R. 4 helps protect citizens' ability to register to vote
and provides real enforcement so that marginalized
communities will have proper access to the ballot box.
Empowering Americans to vote and ensuring that everyone has
equal access to participate in the voting process is a core
value of our democracy.
The UAW strongly urges you to vote `YES' on the Voting
Rights Advancement Act (H.R 4).
Sincerely,
Josh Nassar,
Legislative Director.
____

National Hispanic

Leadership Agenda,

December 4, 2019.
Re NHLA Urges Support of the Voting Rights Advancement Act,
H.R. 4.

House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the National
Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), a coalition of the
nation's leading Latino nonpartisan civil rights and advocacy
organizations, to urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Voting
Rights Advancement Act of 2019 (VRAA), H.R. 4. This
legislation restores necessary voting protections to ensure
that discriminatory voting-related changes are blocked before
they are implemented. There is no right more fundamental to
our democracy than the right to vote, and for more than 50
years the Voting Rights Act of 1965
(VRA) provided voters with one of the most effective
mechanisms for protecting that right. The VRAA would provide
Latino and other voters of color new and forward-looking
protections against voter discrimination. The Latino
community cannot wait for another federal election cycle to
go by without effective mechanisms to guard against
discriminatory voting-related changes. NHLA will closely
monitor this matter for inclusion in future NHLA scorecards
evaluating Member support for the Latino community.
The VRA is regarded as one of the most important and
effective pieces of civil rights legislation in our country's
history due to its ability to protect voters of color from
discriminatory voting practices before they occurred. In
2013, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Shelby County v.
Holder, struck down the formula that determined which states
and political subdivisions were required to seek federal pre-
approval of their voting-related changes to ensure they did
not discriminate against minority voters. The Supreme Court
put the onus on Congress to enact a new formula better
tailored to current history, and after the decision, states
or political subdivisions were no longer required to seek
preclearance unless ordered by a federal court in the course
of litigation.
H.R. 4 includes a new geographic coverage formula to
identify those jurisdictions that will have to ``preclear''
their voting-related changes, as well as new provisions
requiring practice-based preclearance, or ``known-practices
coverage.'' Known-practices coverage would focus
administrative or judicial review narrowly on suspect
practices that are most likely to be tainted by
discriminatory intent or to have discriminatory effects, as
demonstrated by a broad historical record. Any jurisdiction
in the U.S. that is home to a racially, ethnically, and/or
linguistically diverse population and that seeks to adopt a
covered practice will be required to preclear the change
before implementation. The known practices covered under the
bill include. 1) changes in method of election to change a
single-member district to an at-large seat or to add an at-
large seat to a governing body; 2) certain redistricting
plans where there is significant minority population growth
in the previous decade; 3) annexations or deannexations that
would significantly alter the composition of the
jurisdiction's electorate; 4) certain identification and
proof of citizenship requirements; 5) certain polling place
closures and realignments; and 6) the withdrawal of
multilingual materials and assistance not matched by the
reduction of those services in English.
Preclearance is an efficient and effective form of
alternative dispute resolution that prevents the
implementation of voting-related changes that would deny
voters of color a voice in our elections. Preclearance saves
taxpayers in covered jurisdictions a considerable amount of
money because the jurisdiction can obtain quick decisions
without having to pay attorneys, expert witnesses, or
prevailing plaintiff's fees and costs that are incurred in
complex and expensive litigation. In December 2018,
redistricting litigation in North Carolina had already cost
$5.6 million in taxpayer dollars. The litigation related to
Texas's redistricting scheme was also a multi-million dollar
affair, ultimately paid by taxpayers for the discriminatory
actions of government officials.
Across the U.S., racial, ethnic, and language-minority
communities are rapidly growing -- the country's total
population is projected to become majority-minority by 2044.
It is no secret that many states and local jurisdictions fear
losing political power, and the rapid growth of these
communities is often seen as a threat to existing political
establishments. Between 2007 and 2014, five of the ten U.S.
counties with the most rapid rates of Latino population
growth were in North Dakota or South Dakota, two states whose
overall Latino populations still

[[Page H9316]]

account for less than ten percent of their residents, and are
dwarfed by Latino communities in states like New Mexico,
Texas, and California. It is precisely this rapid growth of
different racial or ethnic populations that results in the
perception that emerging communities of color are a threat to
those in political power.
Last month, MALDEF, NALEO--both members of NHLA--and Asian
Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC, released a new report,
Practice-Based Preclearance: Protecting Against Tactics
Persistently Used to Silence Minority Communities' Votes,
detailing the need for forward-looking VRA legislation that
provides protections for emerging minority populations. H.R.
4 identifies different voting changes most likely to
discriminatorily affect access to the vote in diverse
jurisdictions whose minority populations are attaining
visibility and influence. The report looked at these
identified practices and found, based on two separate
analyses of voting discrimination, that these known practices
occur with great frequency in the modern era.
Congress must protect the access to the polls, and it must
include a known-practices coverage formula. H.R. 4 is a
critical piece of legislation that will restore voter
protections that were lost due to the Shelby County decision.
NHLA urges you to stand with voters and to vote ``yes'' on
H.R. 4.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Saenz,
MALDEF, President and General Counsel, NHLA Chair, Civil
Rights Committee, Co-Chair.
Juan Cartagena,
LatinoJustice PRLDEF, President and General Counsel, Civil
Rights Committee NHLA, Co-Chair.
____

National Education Association,

October 22, 2019.
House Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 3 million members of
the National Education Association who work in 14,000
communities across the nation, thank you for holding this
markup of the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 (H.R. 4).
We urge you to VOTE YES on the Voting Rights Advancement Act,
which we believe combats voter discrimination and protects
the most fundamental right in our democracy. Votes on this
issue may be included in NEA's Report Card for the 116th
Congress.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby v. Holder invalidated a
crucial provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that
prevented states with a history of discriminating against
voters from changing their voting laws and practices without
preclearance by federal officials. This federal review was an
important feature of the Voting Rights Act; doing away with
it has virtually annulled the federal oversight that was--and
remains--crucial to ensuring that millions of people have
equal access to the ballot box After the 2013 Shelby
decision, several states changed their voting practices in
controversial ways that created barriers for people of color,
low-income people, transgender people, college students, the
elderly, and those with disabilities. The Voting Rights
Advancement Act takes several steps toward reversing this
harmful, undemocratic trend, including:
Modernizing the Voting Rights Act so that preclearance
covers states and localities with a pattern of
discrimination;
Requiring jurisdictions to publicly disclose, 180 days
before an election, all voting changes; and
Authorizing the Attorney General, either on Election Day or
during early voting, to send federal observers to any
jurisdiction where there is a substantial risk of
discrimination at the polls.
NEA members live, work, and vote in every precinct, county,
and congressional district in the United States. They take
their obligation to vote seriously because it is essential to
protecting the opportunities that they believe all students
should have. Furthermore, educators teach students that
voting is a responsibility of citizenship, a privilege for
which many people have fought and died. We urge you to VOTE
yes on the Voting Rights Advancement Act, and to support
legislation to expand voter registration, safeguard our
elections, and restore voting rights for people with past
criminal convictions--important steps to ensure that all have
a voice in our society.
Sincerely,

Marc Egan,

Director of Government Relations,
National Education Association.
____

In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive
Justice Agenda,
December 4, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of In Our Own Voice:
National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda, a
national/state partnership with eight Black Women's
Reproductive Justice organizations (Black Women's Health
Imperative, New Voices for Reproductive Justice, SisterLove,
Inc., SisterReach, SPARK Reproductive Justice NOW!, Inc., The
Afiya Center, and Women With A Vision), lifting up the voices
of Black women leaders on local, state, and national policies
that impact the lives of Black Women and girls, we write in
strong support of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act.
We oppose any Motion to Recommit. We urge you to vote ``yes''
during the anticipated House floor vote.
At the core of Reproductive Justice is the human right to
control our bodies, our sexuality, our gender, our work, and
our reproduction. That right can only be achieved when all
women and girls (cis, femme, trans, agender, gender non-
binary and gender nonconforming) have the complete economic,
social, and political power and resources to make healthy
decisions about our bodies, our families, and our communities
in all areas of our lives. This most certainly includes at
the polls.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in June of 2013 that gutted
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most impactful
civil rights laws enacted to date, significantly set back
racial equality in voting. Since the Supreme Court decision
in Shelby County v. Holder, discrimination has become common
place in voting, nationwide, and voter suppression is
absolutely rampant throughout the system. We know that such
suppression disproportionately impacts communities of color.
Significant barriers exist for Black communities. In a
nationwide poll conducted by In Our Own Voice, National
Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and National Asian
Pacific American Women's Forum in Spring of 2019, 33% of
women of color voters polled experienced an issue voting.
Additionally, countless hearings held by the House Judiciary
Committee throughout the year have shown significant barriers
to accessing the polls, significantly impeding voter
participation.
H.R. 4 is necessary to restore and modernize the Voting
Rights Act to acknowledge the lived experiences of those
working to access the polls in all communities. This
legislation would strengthen our voting laws to ensure
repeated voting rights violations are addressed, increases
processes and transparency around voting changes, and goes
great lengths to protection individuals from racial
discrimination in voting.
In Our Own Voice's work, particularly through our I Am A
Voter project, is to increase Black women's voter engagement
in state, local and federal elections, to ensure our stories
are told and our voices are represented. H.R. 4 is critical
to ensuring that we can express our beliefs and positions
through the ballot box. We urge Congress to pass this
historic legislation.
Sincerely,
Marcela Howell,
Founder and President/CEO.
____

American Civil Liberties Union,

December 5, 2019.
Re Vote YES on H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) urges you to vote ``YES'' on H.R. 4 the Voting Rights
Advancement Act of 2019 (VRAA) this morning. The ACLU will
score this vote.
Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act in 1965 (VRA) almost
a century after the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment,
which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The most
powerful enforcement tool in the Voting Rights Act was the
federal preclearance process, established by Section 5. It
required locations with the worst records of voting
discrimination to federally ``preclear''--or get federal
approval for--voting changes by demonstrating to either the
Justice Department or the D.C. federal court that the voting
change would not have a discriminatory purpose or effect.
What preclearance meant in practice was that states and
jurisdictions with documented histories of voting
discrimination could not enforce new voting rules without
showing that the rules did not discriminate on the basis of
race.
While upholding the Voting Rights Act's preclearance
process itself, the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby
County v. Holder effectively nullified preclearance
protections contained in the Voting Rights Act by
invalidating the coverage formula that identified which
locations would be subject to preclearance. Many states have
taken the Shelby County decision as a green light to enact
discriminatory voting restrictions with impunity. These
restrictions include photo ID laws, restraints on voter
registration, voter purges, cuts to early voting,
restrictions on the casting and counting of absentee and
provisional ballots, documentary proof of citizenship
requirements, polling place closures and consolidations, and
criminalization of acts associated with registration or
voting.
In turn, this rash of discriminatory voting laws has led to
an explosion of litigation to protect voters from state and
local violations of federal law. Since Shelby County, the
ACLU has opened more than 60 new voting rights cases and
investigations and currently has more than 30 active matters.
Between the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections alone, the
ACLU and our affiliates won 15 voting rights victories,
protecting more than 5 6 million voters in 12 states that
collectively are home to 161 members of the House of
Representatives and wield 185 votes in the Electoral College.
The ACLU also submitted a 227-page report to the House
Judiciary Committee reviewing the legal landscape, evidence
of ongoing voting discrimination addressed by the bill, and
an analysis of its key provisions. The ACLU report is
publicly available here: https://www.aclu.orglreport/aclu-
report-voting-rights-act.

[[Page H9317]]

The ACLU's recent litigation experience supports at least
two conclusions: our record of success in blocking
discriminatory voting changes--with an overall success rate
in Voting Rights Act litigation of more than 80 percent--
reveals that state and local officials are continuing to
engage in a widespread pattern of unconstitutional racial
discrimination and pervasive violations of federal law. It
also shows that there is a lack of tools necessary to stop
discriminatory changes to voting laws before they taint an
election. Even in the cases in which the ACLU has ultimately
succeeded, these discriminatory policies remained in place
for months or even years while litigation proceeded--crucial
time during which elections were held, and hundreds of
government officials elected, under unfair conditions.
In delivering the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority opinion in
Shelby County, Chief Justice John Roberts expressly invited
Congress to update the Voting Rights Act's protections based
on current conditions of discrimination. It is long past due
for Congress to renew the protections of the Voting Rights
Act. The price of inaction to protect the voting rights of
Americans is high, and history offers a myriad of examples
demonstrating its cost to the nation. Congress must act now
to cement the legacy of the Voting Rights Act and guard the
rights of all Americans. The ACLU urges you to vote ``yes''
on H.R. 4 and reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.
Sincerely,
Ronald Newman,
National Political Director, National Political Advocacy
Department.
Sonia Gill,
Senior Legislative Counsel, National Political Advocacy
Department.
____

Anti-Defamation League,

June 26, 2019.
Hon. Steve Cohen,
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Dear Chairman Cohen and Ranking Member Johnson: On behalf
of ADL (the Anti-Defamation League), we write to urge the
House Judiciary Committee to take prompt action to protect
Americans' fundamental right to vote by approving H.R. 4, the
Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 (VRAA). We ask that
this statement be included as part of the official hearing
record for the subcommittee's June 25, 2019 hearing on
``Continuing Challenges to the Voting Rights Act Since Shelby
County.''
Since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965,
a central part of ADL's mission--``to stop the defamation of
the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment
to all''--has been devoted to helping to ensure that all
Americans have a voice in our democracy. Answering Dr. King's
call for ``religious leaders from all over the nation to join
us . . . in our peaceful, nonviolent march for freedom,'' ADL
lay leaders and staff joined more than 3,000 Americans in
``peaceful demonstration against blind violence, in `gigantic
witness' to the constitutionally guaranteed right of all
citizens to register and vote in 1965.''
ADL continues to work today to ensure that all eligible
Americans can exercise their fundamental right to vote
through advocacy in the courts, legislatures, and
communities. We are proud to have stood with leaders such as
Dr. King and Rep. John Lewis in 1965 to fight for every
citizen's right to vote and we remain equally committed to
this goal today. Recognizing the this landmark law as one of
the most important and most effective pieces of civil rights
legislation ever enacted, ADL has strongly supported the VRA
and its extensions since its passage more than 50 years ago,
including by filing a brief in Shelby County v Holder.
In the years and decades following the enactment of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the law quickly demonstrated its
essential value in ensuring rights and opportunities. Between
1964 and 1968--the presidential elections immediately before
and after passage of the VRA respectively--African American
voter turnout in the South jumped by seven percentage points.
The year after passage of the VRA, Edward Brooke became the
first African American in history elected to the United
States Senate by popular vote, and the first African American
to serve in the Senate since Reconstruction. By 1970, the
number of African Americans elected to public office had
increased fivefold. Today there are more than 10,000 African
American elected officials at all levels of government.
To be sure, Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a
language minority group in voting practices and procedures
nationwide, has helped to secure many of these advances. Yet
it is undeniable that Section 5 of the VRA, which requires
certain states and political subdivisions with a history of
discriminatory voting practices to provide notice and ``pre-
clear'' any voting law changes with the federal government,
played an essential and invaluable role in the VRA's success.
Between 1982 and 2006, pursuant to Section 5, the Department
of Justice (DOJ) blocked 700 proposed discriminatory voting
laws, the majority of which were based on ``calculated
decisions to keep minority voters from fully participating in
the political process.'' Proposed laws blocked by Section 5
included discriminatory redistricting plans, polling place
relocations, biased annexations and de-annexations, and
changing offices from elected to appointed positions, similar
to many of the tactics used to disenfranchise minority voters
before 1965. In addition, states and political subdivisions
either altered or withdrew from consideration approximately
800 proposed voting changes between 1982 and 2006, indicating
that Section 5's impact was much broader than the 700 blocked
laws.
Despite decades of success and extensive documentation of
the law's effectiveness in preventing discriminatory
restrictions on the right to vote, on June 25, 2013 the U.S
Supreme Court, in a sharply divided 5-4 ruling in Shelby
County v. Holder, struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA. In
doing so, the Court substituted its views for Congress's own
very extensive hearings and findings conducted in 2006 when
Congress almost unanimously voted to reauthorize the VRA for
another 25 years. The ruling invalidated the formula used to
determine which states and political subdivisions would be
subject to preclearance under Section 5 but did not evaluate
the merits of the preclearance provision itself. The majority
only held that ``the formula in that section can no longer be
used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to
preclearance.''
While Shelby County has done irreparable damage to voting
rights in the United States, Congress is not powerless to
mitigate this damage and restore the original force of the
VRA. In fact, the Court specifically noted that ``Congress
may draft another formula based on current conditions'' and
reinstate the preclearance provision in Section 5. The Voting
Rights Advancement Act of 2019 introduces a new, rolling
preclearance formula based on current need that would restore
the preemptory force of the VRA. The recent onslaught of
restrictive voting laws enacted across the country is
evidence that litigation pursuant to Section 2 is entirely
inadequate to prevent unconstitutional voting practices and
discrimination. Since 2010, over 25 states have enacted
restrictive voting laws. Half the country now faces stricter
voting regulations than they did in 2010.
Perhaps the most illustrative case for the ongoing
necessity of a preclearance process is the battle over a
Texas voter ID law. In 2011, Texas passed S.B 14, the
strictest voter ID law ever enacted in the United States.
Because Texas was required under Section 4 of the VRA to seek
preclearance for its voting laws, the law was initially
blocked from going into effect. The three-judge panel that
reviewed the law found that ``based on the record of evidence
before us, it is virtually certain that these burdens will
disproportionately affect racial minorities. Simply put, many
Hispanics and African Americans who voted in the last
election will, because of the burdens imposed by SB 14,
likely be unable to vote.''
Within hours of the Court's decision in Shelby County,
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that S.B 14
would go into effect immediately. Following the Attorney
General's announcement, multiple civil rights groups and
Texas voters filed suit under Section 2 of the VRA. In 2014,
a district court held that ``SB 14 was enacted with a
racially discriminatory purpose, has a racially
discriminatory effect, is a poll tax, and unconstitutionally
burdens the right to vote.'' On appeal, a court of appeals
stayed the district court's decision and allowed the law to
take effect.
For more than two years and over the span of two election
cycles, SB 14 prevented eligible voters from casting a ballot
while litigation was ongoing. By the time the law was finally
invalidated in 2016 by a 9-2 vote of the entire Court of
Appeals for the D.C Circuit (sitting en bane), no fewer than
seven federal judges had concluded the law was
discriminatory. Yet because Section 5 of the VRA was not in
effect, this patently unconstitutional law was permitted to
disenfranchise untold numbers of minority voters, over two
election cycles. The consequences of disenfranchisement are
not fully quantifiable but are certainly lasting. Elections
cannot be undone, and no judicial relief can restore the
confidence in our democracy that was unfairly taken from
thousands of disenfranchised voters.
Texas is not the only state to adopt strict voter ID laws.
The National Conference of State Legislatures identifies 10
states with ``strict'' voter ID laws and finds that 11% of
all Americans lack the necessary government ID that these
laws require. Voter ID laws have been found on multiple
occasions to disproportionately affect marginalized
communities, low-income and elderly Americans, and students.
Nor is Voter ID the only, tool states are using to
disenfranchise voters for political gain. In Georgia, then
Secretary of State Brian Kemp enforced new election code
policies for the 2018 election (in which he was a candidate
for Governor) which invalidated a voter's registration if
there was any discrepancy in their registration paperwork. Of
the 53,000 voters whose registration status was arbitrarily
questioned, roughly 70% were African American. In Ohio, a
``use it or lose it'' law caused hundreds of thousands of
voters to be purged from the 2018 voter rolls because they
did not vote in the last presidential election.
Gerrymandering, voter intimidation and harassment, cuts to
early

[[Page H9318]]

voting opportunities, polling place manipulation and closure,
and felony disenfranchisement efforts are just some of the
other voter suppression tactics that have become prevalent
since Shelby County and were used to disenfranchise voters in
the 2018 election.
Indeed, we have seen the reversal of half a century of
voting rights advancements since Shelby County. While Section
5 of the VRA surely could not have prevented all of these
evils, there is no question that this country's democratic
institutions would be stronger and our electoral processes
more representative if the VRA were in full effect. Following
this incredible damage done to the most fundamental of our
rights as Americans, Congress now finds itself in the
position to act.
The Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA) of 2019 is an
important first step in restoring voter trust in America's
elections and preventing states from enacting additional
discriminatory measures to suppress the vote. Just over a
decade ago, as Congress was debating the most recent
reauthorization of the VRA, committees held 21 hearings and
compiled over 20,000 pages of records as evidence of the
success of Section 5, the prevalence of ongoing voting
discrimination, and the constitutionality of the law. As a
result, the reauthorization passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support: 390 to 33 in the House of Representatives
and 98-0 in the Senate. Congress now has both the power and
the imperative to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act and
restore the critical voting protections that quite recently
received overwhelming bipartisan approval.
In the face of federal inaction, many states have taken the
lead on expanding and securing the right to vote for all
people. In 2018, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington adopted
automatic voter registration, a policy which would
significantly increase access to the ballot. Since 2016, six
states have limited or reversed their felon
disenfranchisement laws and 16 states have enacted reforms
such as same-day registration, online voter-registration, and
expanded early voting opportunities that make it easier to
register and vote. Despite the absence of Congressional
leadership, there is substantial momentum behind expanding
ballot access and preserving America's voting rights.
S. 1945, the VRAA, creates a modern, flexible, rolling
formula to determine which states and political subdivisions
will have to pre-clear their laws with the federal
government. The formula will not require preclearance in all
the political subdivisions that have moved to restrict voting
rights in the past six years, including some of the examples
above, but, over time, the rolling formula will sweep in many
of the most problematic jurisdictions. It will restore
critical safeguards, preventing enactment of discriminatory
voting laws by once more ``shift[ing] the advantage of
inertia and time from the perpetrators of the evil to the
victims.''
The Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution proclaims
that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.'' Section 2 of the Amendment expressly declares
that ``Congress shall have the power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.'' As the Supreme Court has
recognized, ``by adding this authorization, the Framers
indicated that Congress was to be chiefly responsible for
implementing the rights created in Section 1,'' and
``Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the
constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in
voting.'' Passage of the Voting Rights Advancement Act is not
only rational. It is critical to enforcing the constitutional
prohibition on racial discrimination in voting and protecting
the fundamental right to vote for all Americans.
We strongly welcome these hearings on the devastating
legacy of Shelby County and appreciate the opportunity to
present ADL's views. We urge the Committee to promptly
approve the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019.
Sincerely,
Eileen B. Hershenov,
Senior Vice President, Policy.
Steven M. Freeman,
Vice President, Civil Rights.
Erika L. Moritsugu,
Vice President, Government Relations, Advocacy, and
Community Engagement.
Melissa Garlick,
Civil Rights National Counsel.
____

AFL-CIO,

December 5, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing
to urge you to vote for the Voting Rights Advancement Act
(H.R.4). This bill offers a flexible nationwide approach to
protecting voters from discriminatory practices, and it is an
important step toward restoration of the protections
undermined by the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby
County v Holder. We urge you to oppose any motion to
recommit.
The bill would establish a new preclearance coverage
formula that is responsive to the discriminatory practices
that have proliferated since the Supreme Court's decision in
Shelby County v. Holder. As Chief Justice Roberts himself
said in the Shelby decision: ``voting discrimination still
exists; no one doubts that.'' Discriminatory policies have
not only resurfaced in areas formerly covered by the Voting
Rights Act's preclearance requirement, but also have
proliferated nationwide. State and local officials brazenly
have imposed restrictive voting requirements, altered
district boundaries, and shifted polling locations in ways
that make voting more difficult and less accessible for many
voters. The Voting Rights Advancement Act would address these
disenfranchisement strategies, as well as others certain to
develop.
The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy, and the
effort to protect citizens from voting discrimination has
been bipartisan for more than half a century. Indeed, the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have passed without
leadership from both political parties, and Republican
presidents signed each Voting Rights Act reauthorization into
law.
The integrity of our democracy depends on ensuring that
every eligible voter can participate in the electoral
process, and, thus, voting discrimination demands strong
bipartisan legislative action. Every member of Congress
should go on record today in support of this historic
legislation.
Sincerely,
William Samuel, Director,
Government Affairs Department.
____

Bend the Arc: Jewish Action,

December 5, 2019.
Re Vote for the Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4) and
against any Motion to Recommit.

Dear Representative: As the Washington Director of Bend the
Arc: Jewish Action, I urge you to vote for the Voting Rights
Advancement Act (H.R. 4) and to vote against any Motion to
Recommit (MTR), when it comes to a vote this week. This
crucial legislation would restore and modernize the Voting
Rights Act to combat voter suppression and discrimination
across the country. As the largest national Jewish social
justice organization focused exclusively on domestic policy,
Bend the Arc and our members across the country care deeply
about ensuring all people are able to exercise their
Constitutional right to shape our democracy through voting.
The VRAA responds to the urgent need to undo the onslaught
of abuses by state and local governments in the aftermath of
the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder,
gutting the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act.
Since that decision, 14 states have imposed new voting
restrictions that would have likely been deemed unacceptable
were the VRA at full strength. These policies have had real
consequences, such as likely contributing to significantly
lower turnout amongst targeted populations, including people
of color, in both the 2016 presidential election and the 2018
midterms.
The fight to protect voting rights is deeply personal for
American Jews. There is something quintessentially American,
and also quintessentially Jewish, about voting. After all,
voting is a ritual, part of belonging to the community.
Additionally, the United States was the first federal
government to fully enfranchise Jews. For many Jews, our
families migrated to the U.S. fleeing persecution, coming
here to find a country where, even if they were not always
welcome or even fully protected under the law, they
nonetheless had a legal right to exist, and be a part of our
democratic system at the basic level.
Today, we draw inspiration not only from that part of the
American Jewish experience, but also from the Jewish leaders
of the recent past who worked to pass the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, and those today who participate in election
protection efforts every Election Day. This is why Bend the
Arc has helped mobilize the faith community in support of the
VRAA and organized National Days of Action for voting rights
to mark the 50th anniversary of the murder of Andrew Goodman,
James Chaney, and Mickey Schwerner in 1964, and the passing
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Again, I urge you to vote for the Voting Rights Advancement
Act (H.R. 4) and against any MTR, to ensure that all
Americans are able to exercise their Constitutionally-
protected right to vote.
Sincerely,

Rabbi Jason Kimelman-Block,

Washington Director,
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action.

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the many
stakeholder groups that have worked so hard on this bill: the
Leadership Council, the Legal Defense Fund, the NAACP, the Lawyers'
Committee, the AFL-CIO, MALDEF, and so many more.
As we prepare to take this vote, let us be guided by our north star,
that is our wonderful colleague, our beloved colleague, John Lewis,
who reminds us each and every day that the price of freedom is not
free. It has been bought and paid for by the courage of ordinary
Americans who dared to make this Nation live up to its ideals of
equality and justice for all.
Let us recommit ourselves to restoring the promise of voter equality
and pass H.R. 4 today.

[[Page H9319]]

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 14\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 20\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee, having participated in the restoration and reinvigoration of
the Voting Rights Act in the 2000-2008 period that was bipartisan
because there was an understanding by President Bush that the denial of
one's right to vote is a denial of human rights, I stand here today as
a Member who has joined a number of the congressional hearings. I thank
Congresswomen Sewell and Fudge and Congressmen Cohen and Nadler for the
work that has been done, and I encourage my good friend, Mr. Collins,
to be reminded of the voter suppression in his gubernatorial race that
resulted in the loss of Stacey Abrams.
And so I rise today as one who has seen the impact of voting rights,
particularly in the State of Texas, and argue vigorously for the
restoration through H.R. 4. It is a fair bill: 25-year period on a
rolling basis with current conditions, and a 10-year legitimacy for
those that pass the test.
President Johnson, during the signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
said the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for
breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which
imprison men and women because they are different from other men and
women.
I am a victim of voting rights suppression. I am a redistrict
district that comes from the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Barbara Jordan
would not have come to this House had it not been for the right to vote
for someone that you choose.
In 1940, only 3 percent of African Americans living in the South were
registered. Only after Barbara Jordan submitted an amendment did we
include Hispanics.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an
additional 15 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Only in the period of the horrible Shelby vote did
we have voter suppression with the voter ID law that impacted Hispanics
in Texas severely, purging language that I helped put in this present
bill and, of course, moving polling places.
If we believe in this document called the Constitution, then we
believe in H.R. 4. We want it restored because it is the right of the
people to vote.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an
original cosponsor, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the
Voting Rights Advancement Act, which corrects the damage done in recent
years to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and commits the national
government to protecting the right of all Americans to vote free from
discrimination and without injustices that previously prevented them
from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship.
I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama for
introducing this legislation, to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and
the Democratic leadership for shepherding this bill to the floor, and
to many colleagues and countless number of ordinary Americans who never
stopped agitating and working to protect the precious right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the Supreme Court's invitation in Shelby
County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), H.R. 4 provides a new coverage
formula based on ``current conditions'' and creates a new coverage
formula that hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights violations
in the preceding 25 years.
It is significant that this 25-year period is measured on a rolling
basis to keep up with ``current conditions,'' so only states and
political subdivisions that have a recent record of racial
discrimination in voting are covered.
States and political subdivisions that qualify for preclearance will
be covered for a period of 10 years, but if they have a clean record
during that time period, they can be extracted from coverage.
H.R. 4 also establishes ``practice-based preclearance,'' which would
focus administrative or judicial review narrowly on suspect practices
that are most likely to be tainted by discriminatory intent or to have
discriminatory effects, as demonstrated by a broad historical record.
Under the bill, this process of reviewing changes in voting is
limited to a set of specific practices, including such things as:
1. Changes to the methods of elections (to or from at-large
elections) in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically
diverse.
2. Redistricting in areas that are racially, ethnically, or
linguistically diverse.
3. Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling in areas that are
racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse; and
4. Changes in documentation or requirements to vote or to register.
It is useful, Mr. Speaker, to recount how we arrived at this day.
Mr. Speaker, fifty-four years ago, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of
heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to
vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting
rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final,
completed march from Selma to Montgomery.
Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women,
boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so
much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to
bring it even closer to its founding ideals.
The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have
dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the
making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to
vote.
On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights
``demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John
Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and local police at
the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in
support of the right to vote.
``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because
it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and
effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American.
No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot
soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will ever
I forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory and
experience.
On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol and in the presence
of such luminaries as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev.
Ralph Abernathy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Roy
Wilkins of the NAACP; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; James
Foreman of the Congress of Racial Equality; A. Philip Randolph of the
Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis of the Student Non-
Violent Coordinating Committee; Senators Robert Kennedy, Hubert
Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen; President Johnson addressed the nation
before signing the Voting Rights Act:
``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for
breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which
imprison men because they are different from other men.''
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter
discrimination violations that historically left millions of African
Americans disenfranchised.
In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans
registered to vote in Texas and only about 3 percent of African
Americans living in the South were registered to vote.
Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major
causes of these racially discriminatory results.
After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited
these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral
participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than
1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote.
In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were
approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just
three in Congress.
Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the
South.
Because of the Voting Rights Act, in 2007 there were more than 9,100
black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest
number ever.
Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act opened the political process for
many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have
been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the
state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress.
Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered
harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited
greatly.
The crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Section 5, which
requires that states and localities with a chronic record of
discrimination in voting practices secure federal approval before
making any changes to voting processes.
Section 5 protects minority voting rights where voter discrimination
has historically been the worst.

[[Page H9320]]

Between 1982 and 2006, Section 5 stopped more than 1,000
discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107
discriminatory changes right here in Texas.
Passed in 1965 with the extraordinary leadership of President Lyndon
Johnson, the greatest legislative genius of our lifetime, the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 was bringing dramatic change in many states across
the South.
But in 1972, change was not coming fast enough or in many places in
Texas.
In fact, Texas, which had never elected a woman to Congress or an
African American to the Texas State Senate, was not covered by Section
5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the language minorities living in
South Texas were not protected at all.
But thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the tireless voter
registration work performed in 1972 by Hillary Clinton in Texas, along
with hundreds of others, including her future husband Bill, Barbara
Jordan was elected to Congress, giving meaning to the promise of the
Voting Rights Act that all citizens would at long last have the right
to cast a vote for person of their community, from their community, for
their community.
Mr. Speaker, it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in Houston
that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to all
Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also represented
this historic 18th Congressional District of Texas, introduced, and the
Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4) of the
Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of Section 4(a) and
Section 5 to language minorities.
During the floor debate on the 1975 reauthorization of the Voting
Rights Act, Congresswoman Jordan explained why this reform was needed:
``There are Mexican-American people in the State of Texas who have
been denied the right to vote; who have been impeded in their efforts
to register and vote; who have not had encouragement from those
election officials because they are brown people.
``So, the state of Texas, if we approve this measure, would be
brought within the coverage of this Act for the first time.''
When it comes to extending and protecting the precious right vote,
the Lone Star State--the home state of Lyndon Johnson and Barbara
Jordan--can be the leading state in the Union, one that sets the
example for the Nation.
But to realize that future, we must turn from and not return to the
dark days of the past.
We must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge
or dilute the precious right to vote.
Madam Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that need to
passthis legislation is urgent because the right to vote--that
``powerful--instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''--
faces grave threats.
The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme
Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which
invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of
the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements.
According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down
Section 4(b) was that ``times change.''
Now, the Court was right; times have changed.
But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive
changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed and that is why
we must pass H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by
Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not
eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in
stymieing the practices that resulted in the wholesale
disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did
eliminate them entirely.
The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another
epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still
needed to prevent another polio epidemic.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in Shelby County v. Holder,
``[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to
work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella
in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.''
However, officials in some states, notably Texas and North Carolina,
seemed to regard the Shelby decision as a green light and rushed to
implement election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass
muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime.
My constituents remember very well the Voter ID law passed in Texas
in 2011, which required every registered voter to present a valid
government-issued photo ID on the day of polling in order to vote.
The Justice Department blocked the law in March of 2012, and it was
Section 5 that prohibited it from going into effect.
At least it did until the Shelby decision, because on the very same
day that Shelby was decided officials in Texas announced they would
immediately implement the Photo ID law, and other election laws,
policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section
5 preclearance regime.
The Texas Photo ID law was challenged in federal court and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the decision of U.S.
District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos that Texas' strict voter
identification law discriminated against blacks and Hispanics and
violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Speaker, protecting voting rights and combating voter suppression
schemes are two of the critical challenges facing our great democracy.
Without safeguards to ensure that all citizens have equal access to
the polls, more injustices are likely to occur and the voices of
millions silenced.
I believe that Texas, the Lone Star State, can be the leading state
in the Union.
But to realize that future, we cannot return to the dark days of its
past and must remain ever vigilant and oppose schemes that will abridge
or dilute the precious right to vote.
That means standing up to and calling out groups and organizations
like ``True the Vote'' and its local Houston-based affiliate, the
``King Street Patriots,'' which in recent years have under the guise of
poll watchers, improperly interacted with persons at polling stations
in Hispanic and African American communities in an attempt to
intimidate them from voting.
The behavior of this group was so outrageous in 2010 that I reported
its conduct to the Attorney General and requested the Department of
Justice to investigate. (See Attachment, Letter from Congresswoman
Jackson Lee to U.S. Attorney General Holder (October 28, 2010)).
Mr. Speaker, in many ways Texas is ground-zero for testing and
perfecting schemes to deprive communities of color and language
minorities of the right to vote and to have their votes counted.
Consider what has transpired in Texas in recent past.
Only 68 percent of eligible voters are registered in Texas and state
restrictions on third party registration, such as the Volunteer Deputy
Registrar program, exacerbate the systemic disenfranchisement of
minority communities.
These types of programs are often aimed at minority and underserved
communities that, for many, many other reasons (like demonization by
the president, for example) or mistrust of law enforcement are afraid
to live as openly as they should.
In Harris County, we had a system where voters were getting purged
from the rolls, effectively requiring people to keep active their
registrations and hundreds of polling locations closed in Texas,
significantly more in number and percentage than any other state.
In addition, the Texas Election Code only requires a 72-hour notice
of polling location changes.
Next, take what happened here in Texas earlier this year when the
Texas Secretary of State claimed that his office had identified 95,000
possible noncitizens on the voter rolls and gave the list to the Texas
State Attorney General for possible prosecution--leading to a claim
from President Trump about widespread voter fraud and outrage from
Democrats and activist groups.
The only problem was that list was not accurate.
At least 20,000 names turned out to be there by mistake, leading to
chaos, confusion, and concern that people's eligibility vote was being
questioned based on flawed data.
The list was made through state records going back to 1996 that show
which Texas residents were not citizens when they got a driver's
license or other state ID.
But many of the person who may have had green cards or work visas at
the time they got a Texas ID are on the secretary of state's office's
list, and many have become citizens since then since nearly 50,000
people become naturalized U.S. citizens in Texas annually.
Latinos made up a big portion of the 95,000-person list.
Texas Republicans adopted racial and partisan gerrymandered
congressional, State legislative redistricting plans that federal
courts have ruled violate the Voting Rights Act and were drawn with
discriminatory intent.
Even after changes were demanded by the courts, much of the damage
done was already done.
Reversing the position by the Obama administration, the U.S.
Department of Justice has told a federal court that it no longer
believes past discrimination by Texas officials should require the
state to get outside approval for redistricting maps that will be drawn
in 2021.
In addition to affirmative ways to making it harder to vote, we also
know face other odious impediments in Texas.
Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical
of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll

[[Page H9321]]

taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability
of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast
their votes.
This is the harm that can be done without preclearance, so on a
federal level, there is an impetus to act.
Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical
of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes
and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of
seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their
votes.
Consider the demographic groups who lack a government issued ID:
1. African Americans: 25 percent.
2. Asian Americans: 20 percent.
3. Hispanic Americans: 19 percent.
4. Young people, aged 18-24: 18 percent.
5. Persons with incomes less than $35,000: 15 percent.
And there are other ways abridging or suppressing the right to vote,
including:
1. Curtailing or eliminating early voting
2. Ending same-day registration
3. Not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on
Election Day will not count.
4. Eliminating adolescent pre-registration
5. Shortening poll hours.
6. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges thus allowing
self-proclaimed ``ballot security vigilantes'' like the King Street
Patriots to cause trouble at the polls.
The malevolent practice of voter purging is not limited to Texas; we
saw it just last year in Georgia, where then Secretary of State and now
Governor Brian Kemp purged more than 53,000 persons from the voter,
nearly the exact margin of his narrow win over his opponent, Stacy
Abrams in the 2018 gubernatorial election.
Voter purging is a sinister and malevolent practice visited on
voters, who are disproportionately members of communities of color, by
state and local election officials.
This practice, which would have not passed muster under section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act, has proliferated in the years since the Supreme
Court neutralized the preclearance provision, or as Justice Ginsburg
observed in Shelby County v. Holder, ``threw out the umbrella'' of
protection.
Mr. Speaker, citizens in my congressional district and elsewhere know
and have experienced the pain and heartbreak of receiving a letter from
state or local election officials that they have been removed from the
election rolls, or worse, learn this fact on Election Day.
That is why I worked so hard to secure language in the Manager's
Amendment to H.R. 4 that strengthens the bill's ``practice-based
preclearance'' provisions by adding specifically to the preclearance
provision, voting practices that add a new basis or process for
removing a name from the list of active registered voters and the
practice of reducing the days or hours of in-person voting on Sundays
during an early voting period.
Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility and sacred duty of all members
of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and expand the
precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4, the Voting
Rights Advancement Act.
Before concluding there is one other point I would like to stress.
In his address to the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act of
1965, President Johnson said:
``Presidents and Congresses, laws and lawsuits can open the doors to
the polling places and open the doors to the wondrous rewards which
await the wise use of the ballot.
``But only the individual Negro, and all others who have been denied
the right to vote, can really walk through those doors, and can use
that right, and can transform the vote into an instrument of justice
and fulfillment.''
In other words, political power--and the justice, opportunity,
inclusion, and fulfillment it provides--comes not from the right to
vote but in the exercise of that right.
And that means it is the civic obligation of every citizen to both
register and vote in every election, state and local as well as
federal.
Because if we can register and vote, but fail to do so, we are guilty
of voluntary voter suppression, the most effective method of
disenfranchisement ever devised.
And in recent years, Americans have not been doing a very good job of
exercising our civic responsibility to register, vote, and make their
voices heard.
Mr. Speaker, for millions of Americans, the right to vote protected
by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred treasure, earned by the
sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the
world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things.
So today, let us rededicate ourselves to honoring those who won for
us this precious right by remaining vigilant and fighting against both
the efforts of others to abridge or suppress the right to vote and our
own apathy in exercising this sacred right.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
A final statement of something I am about to submit for the Record,
it is a Statement of Administration Policy. It says this: ``In sum,
several provisions of H.R. 4 violate principles of federalism and
exceed the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, and these
provisions would likely be found unlawful if challenged. Accordingly,
the administration opposes H.R. 4.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this Statement of Administration
Policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 4--Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019

(Rep. Sewell, D-AL, and 229 cosponsors)

The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 4, the Voting
Rights Advancement Act of 2019. H.R. 4 would amend the Voting
Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 by imposing a new coverage formula
and transparency obligations on States and local
jurisdictions regarding their elections. These amendments
raise serious policy concerns because the Federal Government
would be granted excessive control over State and local
election practices. Additionally, the Supreme Court has
already held similar restrictions imposed by Congress on
States and localities to be unconstitutional.
No individual should be denied or deterred from exercising
his or her right to vote. Federal law protects against voting
discrimination, allows judicial review of State and local
voting laws, and establishes preclearance requirements. H.R.
4 would overreach by giving the Federal Government too much
authority over an even greater number of voting practices and
decisions made by States and local governments without
justifying the current needs for such policies.
Section 3 of H.R. 4 would amend the VRA by setting forth a
new coverage formula that subjects certain States and local
subdivisions to Federal preclearance requirements before
undertaking certain election activities. For example, the
coverage formula would place restrictions on States with ``15
or more voting rights violations [that] occurred in . . . the
previous 25 calendar years.'' Once a State or locality is
covered by the formula, it would need permission from the
Attorney General or Federal courts before conducting certain
election activities prescribed by the bill.
In striking down the VRA's prior coverage formula, the
Supreme Court held that although ``[o]ur country has changed,
and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much,
Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy
that problem speaks to current conditions.'' Shelby County v.
Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 557 (2013). Accordingly, the coverage
formula set forth in section 3 of H.R. 4 that ``imposes
substantial federalism costs'' on States must therefore be
tailored to ``current needs.'' Id. at 540, 553 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Instead, section 3 continues to
permit reliance on potentially decades-old data--incidents
dating as far back as 25 years--as a justification for
imposing a preclearance requirement.
Additionally, section 4 of H.R. 4 would create a new
``Practice-Based Preclearance'' standard, which would
automatically subject certain election laws to Federal
preclearance, thereby raising significant policy concerns.
This section would, among other things, prejudice Federal law
against State and local voter integrity efforts, such as
voter ID laws, and even impose requirements on routine
administrative actions that include changing voting
locations.
Finally, H.R. 4 would amend the VRA by imposing additional
transparency requirements regarding certain election
activities in Federal, State, and local jurisdictions.
Section 5 of H.R. 4 raises constitutional concerns because
its broad language would interfere with State and local
elections beyond the powers afforded by the Elections Clause.
Specifically, section 5 would require notice of demographic
information related to ``any change in the constituency that
will participate in an election for Federal, State, or local
office.'' This broad language would impose notice
requirements on States that make redistricting changes
despite no Federal election involvement. By doing so, H.R. 4
would impermissibly grant Congress authority beyond what is
authorized by the Elections Clause, and therefore section 5
would likely be found unconstitutional.
In sum, several provisions of H.R. 4 violate principles of
federalism and exceed the powers granted to Congress by the
Constitution, and these provisions would likely be found
unlawful if challenged. Accordingly, the Administration
opposes H.R. 4.
If H.R. 4 were presented to the President, his advisors
would recommend that he veto it.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.

{time} 1100

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I am so proud today to stand here to
support H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement

[[Page H9322]]

Act. And I want to congratulate my incredible colleague Congresswoman
Sewell for her leadership.
When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was a
recognition that systemic discrimination based on race continued to
deny people the right to vote. And as an organizer, I understand the
Voting Rights Act as a victory that was hard fought by Black activists
like Fannie Lou Hamer and Ella Baker and, of course, our esteemed
colleague Representative Lewis, who devoted their lives to fighting for
the right to vote. And it was a victory of the movement that recognized
that this right to vote is absolutely fundamental to our concept and
our actualization of democracy.
Unfortunately, we have not followed with the same courage. Instead,
since 2013, States have enacted laws that have suppressed voting rights
across the country, and today, half of the country faces stricter
voting regulations than they did 9 years ago.
If we want a true democracy, Mr. Speaker, we must protect the right
to vote for all, and this bill is critical to doing that.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee for yielding me time, and I thank him for his leadership.
And, of course, I thank Terri Sewell, who is from Selma, Alabama, who
has been a fighter for voting rights all of her life. I thank her for
sponsoring this bill along with myself and so many others.
It was in Selma in 1965 that another friend and one of our dearest
colleagues, John Lewis, was nearly beaten to death for having the
audacity to demand the right to vote, the right to register, the right
to participate in a meaningful way in our democracy. That year, after
that Bloody Sunday in March of 1965 and the later march to Montgomery
that followed soon after, Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act to
protect against voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement.
One of its core provisions required that the Federal Justice
Department preclear any changes to voting rules in jurisdictions that
have a history of discrimination and voter suppression. Let me, as an
aside say, that these elections are Federal elections, so very frankly,
my constituents have an interest in making sure that constituents of
every other district have an opportunity to have their voice heard.
This is not a State's rights issue, as the administration puts forth.
This is an issue of America's values as a democracy, which is that all
Americans--and that was not always the case, we had to amend the
Constitution of the United States in order to effect that end--that all
Americans have the right and ought to be facilitated in exercising that
right to vote.
Sadly, we know that, notwithstanding the 13th, 14th, and 15th
Amendments, State after State, jurisdiction after jurisdiction, not
solely in the south, adopted policies aimed at preventing the exercise
of the franchise, of preventing the ability to register to vote and to
neuter the vote being cast by redistricting efforts that in effect put
people in a place where they could not elect the person of their
choice.
As a result, millions of Americans after the Voting Rights Act was
adopted were finally able to vote and have their voices heard in their
democracy. However, we ought to be chastened as we consider this
legislation in knowing that for 100 years after the 13th, 14th, and
15th Amendments were adopted, for 100 years, for a century, it was
still necessary for the John Lewises and the Martin Luther Kings to
march. Some gave their lives to redeem that promise that so many gave
their lives to ensure.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down the formula for that
preclearance process in 2013 and charged Congress with updating it. We
have responded this day to that charge. Under the previous Republican-
led Congress, that charge was ignored.
Again, I would ask my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle
to think of their failure to act. Ronald Reagan said to Gorbachev,
``Tear down this wall.''
Today, we have an opportunity to tear down the wall of discrimination
and exclusion to millions of Americans who have been confronted with
policies that make it more difficult for them to vote.
I hope the Senate will join us in tearing down this wall of
discrimination, oppression, and exclusion. I continue to believe that
the decision made by the Supreme Court was a bad decision, which did
not reflect the reality of the success of the preclearance provisions
in the Voting Rights Act.
Indeed, Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent that, ``Throwing
out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop
discriminatory changes is like throwing out your umbrella in a
rainstorm because you are not getting wet.''
Today, the Democratic-led House will vote to restore the full force
of the Voting Rights Act. And I hope every Republican will join us if
they want to ensure that discriminatory practices do not prevent
citizens from voting.
We have given this bill the designation of H.R. 4. I said in a press
conference a little time ago, H.R. 4, H.R. for the people. Whether you
spell it F-O-R or F-O-U-R, this is for the people, for our democracy,
for justice, for inclusion. We have given this bill the designation of
H.R. 4, appropriately, because it is one of our most important pieces
of legislation. Along with H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which
contained a number of provisions strengthening ballot access, making
voter registration automatic, and expanding early voting, H.R. 4 is
part of the Democrats' effort to protect Americans' fundamental right
to vote.

H.R. 4, my colleagues, restores the full protections of the Voting
Rights Act. As you take your card and contemplate putting it in the
slot and pushing either the green button or the red button, reflect
upon those who died, not only in the civil rights movement, but those
who died on foreign shores defending freedom and democracy. Because as
you vote today, you will be voting to defend or to ignore the
fundamental formula for democracy, which is having people's votes
count.
By updating the preclearance formula requiring reasonable public
notice before changes to voting laws or regulations; permitting the
Attorney General to request the presence of election observers anywhere
there is a threat of racial discrimination at the ballot box--these are
not just State elections, I tell my friends; these are elections, which
impact my constituents in your State and every other State, when they
elect Members of Congress, in the United States Senate--and increasing
accessibility and protections for Native Americans and Alaska-native
voters.
Again, I want to thank Representative Sewell for her leadership in
this effort and John Lewis and so many other heroes; my friend Jim
Clyburn, the Democrat whip, who fought for voting rights; for all those
of African American descent who fought for voting rights; for Native
Americans, the first two women of whom we have in the Congress now.
I thank Chairman Nadler for working closely with Terri Sewell and
others to strengthen this legislation by including language to ensure
that jurisdictions that purge voter rolls or reduce early voting
opportunities are subject to preclearance requirements.
It is very nice to say, Well, you can file a suit after the election
is over. You may not have the money to do that, and, in any event, it
is a fait accompli. It is too late. That is why preclearance has been
honored for half a century, and that is why it is so sad that the
Supreme Court set it aside.
And, of course, I want to thank, one more time, my dear friend, John
Lewis, who throughout his lifetime has held up the beloved community.
Voting rights is part of that beloved community. In Selma 54 years ago,
John risked his future, his life and his limb, so every American could
cast a vote.
Today 434 of us ought to join John Lewis, not walking across the
bridge with Alabama troopers waiting to beat us and confront us, but to
that little box where we have the right to vote. Nobody can stop us
from voting in that box today. Let's make sure that nobody stops any of
our fellow Americans

[[Page H9323]]

from putting their card in that voting slot and making democracy all
that our Founders promised it to be.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Jeffries).
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is precious and central
to the integrity of our democracy. It is not a Democratic issue or a
Republican issue. It is an American issue.
The Republican party used to support the unfettered right to vote. In
fact, every single time the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized, it
was signed by a Republican President: 1970, Richard Nixon; 1975, Gerald
Ford; 1982, Ronald Reagan; 2006, George W. Bush. The unfettered right
to vote should be a bipartisan issue, but the party of Lincoln is gone.
The party of Reagan is gone. The party of McCain is gone. Voter
suppression is not a legitimate electoral tactic. It is a stain on our
democracy, and it must be crushed.
Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind those of us voting, we can
like this bill or not like this bill, but this is not a reauthorization
of the Voting Rights Act. This is in addition to, and it is something
we have talked about on our side.
We appreciate the debate going on, but just as a clarification, we
are not reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. The sections that are
already there are still going to be there, they are permanently
enshrined, and we are not going to be changing that. This is a
different part of that, and we would just like to make that clear.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1115

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has
10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) has 20
minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply comment that this is a
restoration of the previously authorized Voting Rights Act before the
Supreme Court did its dastardly deed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Richmond).
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Let me just pick up where they left off. Whether it is a
reauthorization, whether it is a restoration, it does not matter. What
this is, is fixing the stain on America that prohibited and stopped
African Americans and other minorities from voting.
I rise today torn because, on the one hand, I am elated that this
House is finally moving H.R. 4 so that we can protect the right to
vote, but on the other hand, I am disappointed because we have to do it
by ourselves, that this is not a bipartisan effort to ensure the
precious right to vote.
Many people may say that it is a burden on the States. What about the
burden that the States put on us?
In the spirit of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, who were killed so
that I could vote, and John Lewis and others who crossed the Edmund
Pettus Bridge, who were beaten so that I can vote, Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to ask for everyone to support H.R. 4. We should join hands and
do it together.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for
yielding.
I support this bill and its efforts to protect access to the ballot
box and advance justice and democracy for all, including Latinos, which
represent 77 percent of my district.
Enfranchising minority voters will strengthen our democracy because
when all eligible voters can exercise their right, our government works
better by living up to its ideals of ``we the people.''
This bill aims to maintain elections free, fair, and accessible to
all eligible voters.
Congress must pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore our
ability to prevent voter discrimination. We are all equal at the ballot
box, and this bill aims to make sure that that is a reality today,
tomorrow, and every day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, led
by our esteemed colleague, Representative Sewell.
During the civil rights movement, I was the child in the stroller at
the March on Washington. My father served as the Illinois branch
president of the NAACP for over 25 years, and I was raised to always
fight for what is right and just, to stand up for those who do not
always have a voice.
My father planned marches to strengthen our voting rights. I can
still picture him presiding over meetings at our kitchen table, our
house filled with poster boards and preparations and hope.
When it comes to voting rights, my father's work is still unfinished.
Today, I am so proud that we are taking this step toward completing
that work.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Voting
Rights Advancement Act.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have made my statements very
clear on this, and I will continue to do so. For people who have really
struggled with and want to be a part of this, I am also going to say
that this is a time when we can reach out occasionally across the
aisle, and I can help my chairman with a little bit of time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Clyburn).
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins) for yielding me the time.
I have been thinking a lot this morning about my growing up in South
Carolina. I still remember as a young man driving in a driving rain
from Charleston, South Carolina, going up to the little town of
Kingstree in Williamsburg County, which I now represent here in this
body.
On that day, Martin Luther King, Jr., was coming to Williamsburg
County to extol the necessity of voting to all of us. I will never
forget his theme that day, ``march to the ballot box.''
It was just a few months after the 1965 Voting Rights Act had been
passed into law, and that law has been renewed time and time again
throughout the years. But several years ago, the Supreme Court took a
look at the law and decided that the formula that had been used in
section 4 should be updated.
This bill, thanks to the work of Terri Sewell from Alabama and Marcia
Fudge from Ohio, we have had 17 hearings around the country, eight by
the Judiciary Committee--I thank Chairman Nadler so much for that--and
nine by Marcia Fudge's committee. We have wrapped all of those findings
into one bill because we are adhering to what Chief Justice Roberts
asked us to do: update the formula.
We have updated the formula. We are putting it on the floor today,
and I do believe that this piece of legislation is deserving of
bipartisan support.
I can remember when this voting rights bill would pass both houses
unanimously. Let's do that today and demonstrate that we are making
this democracy work for all.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
support of H.R. 4 for the people, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. I
thank my colleagues, Representatives Sewell, Fudge, Nadler, and many
others, for their extraordinary work on this critical legislation that
protects the most basic and fundamental of American rights, the right
to vote.
Ever since the 2013 Supreme Court Shelby decision threw out the
preclearance requirement, undermining the Voting Rights Act, States and
localities with histories of racial injustice have again started
discriminatory voting practices, like requiring IDs, which is
particularly harmful to

[[Page H9324]]

Hispanic voters; moving voting places so it is more difficult to vote;
and many other steps that disenfranchise countless Americans,
particularly men and women of color.
This bill restores the Voting Rights Act in its entirety, repeals the
Shelby decision, and gives the Federal Government the tools to hold
local election officials accountable for discriminatory practices that
deny Americans of this fundamental right.
So many brave Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect
this right for our people. By passing this legislation, we honor their
sacrifice by protecting the right to vote for every single citizen.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Castro).
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote in our Nation is
fundamental to our democracy, and that right to vote continues to come
under assault.
States with a history of denying and blocking the right to vote, like
my home State of Texas, are no longer held in check by the preclearance
requirement of the Voting Rights Act. Worried that changing
demographics erode their political power, Texas leaders continue to
make voting more difficult for Latinos and other communities of color.
For example, since the Shelby case, the Texas secretary of state
attempted to purge nearly 100,000 foreign-born U.S. citizens from voter
rolls; the Texas Legislature restricted mobile voting sites designed to
make voting more convenient; at least 750 polling locations have been
closed, more than any other State; a voter ID law went into effect that
a Federal judge later ruled was enacted to intentionally discriminate
against Black and Latino voters.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is important to protect every
American's right to vote, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) for yielding.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a direct response to evidence of
significant and pervasive racial discrimination across the country.
My home State of Wisconsin really has suffered under the Supreme
Court decision of 2013. After that ruling, then-Governor Scott Walker,
someone I had been fighting since 1990 to prevent him from enacting an
onerous voter ID law, he prevailed in 2016.
The very first year that that voter ID law was enacted was in 2016.
According to a study done by the University of Wisconsin, between
12,000 and 23,000 registered voters in Madison and Milwaukee, and as
many as 45,000 statewide, were deterred from voting by the ID law. The
President, of course, won our State by a mere 23,000 votes.
Mr. Speaker, it is important and imperative that we restore
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. I urge my colleagues to vote for
this great legislation.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding
and bringing H.R. 4 to this floor.
I would like to thank Congresswoman Terri Sewell for her very
consistent efforts to restore the vote and also our Chairwoman Marcia
Fudge of the Subcommittee on Elections for holding hearings throughout
the country, which actually established the foundation for this bill.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act repaired damage in our communities whose
voting rights were denied. Dr. Martin Luther King once said he saw that
as a great step forward.
However, in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in
the Shelby v. Holder decision. As a result, the Nation saw nearly 20
percent fewer polling locations and 17 million voters purged from
voting rolls in States with patterns of voter suppression. This is
especially true for communities of color, whose votes have been
silenced over the years due to this disastrous Court decision.
Voting is the backbone of our democracy and something that every
American should have the right to access.
I was born and raised in El Paso, Texas, and I vividly remember the
denial of full citizenship of African Americans.
Mr. Speaker, we need a system that is strong, free, and fair. I urge
my colleagues to move forward in a bipartisan way and pass H.R. 4.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I stand today as the chair of the Women's
Caucus and as a member of the executive board of the Congressional
Black Caucus, and I stand in strong support of H.R. 4, the Voting
Rights Advancement Act.
These repeated attacks on our right to vote have severely undermined
the people's fundamental voting rights, which are the principles of our
democracy.
H.R. 4 helps protect citizens' ability to register to vote and
provides real enforcement so that marginalized communities, like women
who celebrate their 100th year to vote and African American
communities, will have proper access to the ballot box.
The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, and we must
ensure that every eligible American voter has the ability to have their
vote heard.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

{time} 1130

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has
left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes
remaining.
The gentleman from Georgia has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. Speaker, voting is the cornerstone of our democracy.
It has been a hard-fought right. We must ensure that every American
that is eligible to vote can make their voice heard.
This right has been trampled on after the Shelby County v. Holder
Court decision, which has unleashed a flood of State and local voter
suppression laws, silencing targeted voters, particularly communities
of color.
In my home State of Florida, laws and policies have cut back early
voting, established English-only ballots, and are now trying to thwart
efforts to restore voting rights to ex-felons, hurting access to the
ballot box for Floridians.
H.R. 4 will push back against suppressive voting laws, restoring the
great equalizer for democracy and for our people.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we have only one remaining speaker, who will
be our closing speaker, so the gentleman from Georgia may wish to close
for his side.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to close.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity at the time we have laid
this out. There have been exhaustive hearings on this.
Our objection to this is not about anything else except that we feel
the wording of this and the way this bill is laid out is not good for
our country, much of it will not be held up and will not have its
intended consequences.
I am one who believes and has a State that has been very active in
seeing our minority rolls and our minority voting participation
increase dramatically over the last 4 or 5 years, after, even, the
Shelby decision.
That is an undisputed fact; although, many times, it has been
disputed in many public speeches saying Georgia is going backwards. We
are not. Georgia is going forward and had many, many successes over the
last little bit encouraging minority voting. From my perspective, that
is exactly what we are supposed to be doing.

[[Page H9325]]

So, simply, as we have looked at it, we must move forward with ways
that we make sure every person who wants to vote has the ability to
vote and does so in a proper and legal way. That has never been a
discussion from our side. My only objection here is the way this goes
about it.
And there have been many other issues that we have brought up on
numerous, numerous occasions about how this could actually have adverse
effects across the country, especially if people wanted to really mess
with our voting system and play it for political gain. That is not a
discussion that we are having right here because we have had this in
multiple hearings up to this point.
So I think, for the voter who looks today, this is something that is
going forward with a good-hearted attempt. I will never question the
motivations of what is happening here. I just question the very fact of
what words are on paper.
We do not, in this body, vote on ideas. We do not vote on thoughts.
We vote on words on paper. And the words on paper here do not fulfill
what is being said about this bill.
With that said, I would ask that we vote ``no.'' There are plenty of
opportunities for us to continue to work on this, just not in this
current situation. I respectfully request that people would vote ``no''
and that we move forward with something that actually possibly could
work at a future date.
But from the majority side, this has nothing to do with people voting
or not voting. We want everyone to vote and everyone to participate,
but we want to do so in a fair and legal way.
This is something that we actually think would actually hurt that in
the long run as we go forward. That is why we are asking that this be
voted down, will not support it today, and, along with the
administration, who has said that it will be vetoed if it does reach
his desk, this is something we would rather find a way to have a bill
that could suffice or could make the provisions of this bill even
stronger. This is not happening today.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a ``no'' vote when this comes forward,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of
the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr.
Nadler, the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee. I thank him
for his leadership in bringing this important opportunity for America
to the floor of the House today.
I commend Congresswoman Terri Sewell for her tremendous leadership,
the gentlewoman from Alabama, who knows this subject well, personally,
geographically, and officially, now, as a leading member of the House
of Representatives. I thank her for her leadership.
I thank Congresswoman Marcia Fudge for holding field hearings from
Alabama to Arizona on this urgent issue of voting rights. That scope of
Alabama to Arizona is not alphabetically a big range, but,
geographically and experiencewise, it is.
And to Congressman John Lewis, the conscience of the Congress, what
an honor it is for each and every one of us to serve with him, to call
him colleague and, in many cases, to call him friend. He is a civil
rights hero of the House, whose Voter Empowerment Act was the backbone
of H.R. 1, the For the People Act.
Because there is some resistance on the side of the aisle here to our
reducing the role of dark money in politics, which is a significant
part of H.R. 1, we pulled out H.R. 4 as its own vehicle on the floor,
and I thank all the House Democrats who came to Congress committed to
restoring the right to the ballot, reflected in our naming of this
legislation, H.R. 4, one of our top priorities.
And I say Democrats, but it saddens me to hear the distinguished
ranking member's comments about this legislation and urging a ``no''
vote on the Republican side, because I was leader when we passed the
Voting Rights Act that the Court sent us back to the drawing board on.
At that time, we had around 400 votes in the House of
Representatives, upwards of 395, 400 votes, a completely bipartisan
vote to pass that bill; and it was unanimous in the United States
Senate, not partisan in any way. And we have come to a place where the
Court said you need to do this or thus.
We followed Justice Roberts' guidance; and now, with the improvements
insisted upon by Justice Roberts, the Republicans have gone from being
part of a nearly 400-vote majority on the bill to, hopefully, not being
unanimously against it, but we will see.
Mr. Speaker, nearly 55 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson came to
the House of Representatives. He came on the House floor to urge
passage of the Voting Rights Act ``for the dignity of man and the
destiny of democracy.''
He declared: ``This was the first nation in the history of the world
to be founded with a purpose. . . . `All men are created equal.'
``Those are not just clever words. . . . In their name, Americans
have fought and died for two centuries. . . . Those words are a promise
to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man.''
He continued: ``Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the
rights of man was to flourish, it must be rooted in democracy . . . the
right to choose your own leaders. The history of this country, in large
measure, is the history of the expansion of that right to all of our
people.''
Yet, a half century later, the constitutional right of all Americans
to determine their leaders and the destiny of our democracy is under
great assault from a brazen, nationwide voter suppression campaign.
Since the Shelby v. Holder decision, 23 States--maybe more--have
enacted voter suppression laws, including voter purges, strict ID
requirements, poll closures, and vote intimidation, denying millions
their voices by their vote.
The record compiled by the committees shows that the counties with
the worst histories of voter suppression doubled down on their
discrimination during this time, purging 17 million voters from the
rolls between 2016 and 2018 alone, primarily people of color.
Today, the House is honoring our Nation's sacred pledge--all are
created equal--by passing H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act.
This bill restores the Voting Rights Act's strength to combat the
clear resurgence of voter discrimination unleashed by Shelby by
updating the data determining which States and practices are covered by
the law. No longer will cynical politicians and States with dark
histories of discrimination have a green light to freely continue their
systematic suppression campaign.
When President Johnson spoke on this floor, he said: ``There must be
no delay, no hesitation, and no compromise with our purpose. . . . We
have already waited a hundred years and more, and the time for waiting
is gone.''
Indeed, it took the courage and the ultimate sacrifice of countless
Americans, including our own John Lewis, to secure the passage of the
Voting Rights Act. Honoring and strengthening that legacy is essential
to our democracy. We want to be sure that everyone who is eligible to
vote can vote and that that person's vote is counted as cast.
Today, too, the time for waiting is gone. We must pass this bill,
which is a vote for civil rights, liberty, and justice for all.
I thank Mr. Nadler, Marcia Fudge, and Terri Sewell, the author of
this legislation, which she introduced now to the third Congress, for
giving us the privilege to be part of honoring the pledge of our
Founders: All are created equal.
Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 4, the Voting
Rights Advancement Act of 2019.
This bill restores the full power of the Voting Rights Act, after the
2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder eviscerated it.
It will also restore critical voting protections to ensure that
discriminatory voter suppression laws do not block Americans from
participating in the electoral process.
The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy. During the civil
rights movement, courageous Americans fought in the courts, marched,
agitated, and gave the ``last full measure of devotion'' for all
Americans to be able to exercise their precious right to vote. The bill
includes provisions that promote transparency by mandating reasonable
public notice for voting changes. It also grants the Attorney General
the authority to request the

[[Page H9326]]

presence of federal observers anywhere in the country to prevent voter
suppression efforts and to address discrimination based on race in the
voting process. In addition, this bill authorizes a federal court to
order States or jurisdictions to be covered under the Act when there
are results-based violations, where the effect of a voting measure is
racial discrimination in voting and blocking citizens from utilizing
their right to vote.
For all these reasons and more, today, I am so proud to stand with my
colleagues and members of the Congressional Black Caucus in support of
the passage of H.R. 4, and want to send a special thank you to my
colleagues Congresswoman Terri Sewell and Congresswoman Marcia Fudge
who have fearlessly and brilliantly led this fight in the House of
Representatives.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the
Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019. This bill restores the full
strength of the Voting Rights Act, after a 2013 Supreme Court Decision
gutted the Act. The result was a flood of voter suppression laws
throughout the country.
The possibility of restoring a democratic process that has stifled
the black and brown vote in the U.S. deserves our support. We must
never allow our constitutional rights to be diminished or even
eliminated.
In 2013, the Supreme Court decision, Shelby County v. Holder, struck
down the existing formula that determined which states and political
subdivisions were required to seek federal pre-approval for their
voting-related changes. This was to ensure they did not discriminate
against minority voters. The Supreme Court put the onus on Congress to
enact a new formula, which resulted in States and political
subdivisions not being required to seek preclearance unless ordered by
a federal court.
H.R. 4 restores the Section 5 preclearance process by including a new
formula for coverage that ensures that only States and jurisdictions
with a recent history of discrimination or use of voter suppression
practices would be subject to review before implementing new voting
laws or procedures.
H.R. 4 protects the sacred rights of minority voters and helps
identity discriminatory voting practices. Congress must protect our
polls and support H.R. 4 to ensure the constitutional right to vote for
every citizen of the United States.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the
following letters of support for H.R. 4.

Faith Leader Call on Congress To Restore the Voting Rights Act NOW

Voting is a sacred right and a cornerstone of democracy. We
desperately need to protect every American's right to vote--
and right now this right is endangered by gaps in the law.
Our spiritual ancestors in the Civil Rights Movement fought
for the Voting Rights Act. We must honor their sacrifices
today by passing the Voting Rights Advancement Act.--Rev. Dr.
Jennifer Butler, CEO, Faith in Public Life
We stand on the shoulders of so many in our nation who have
shown courage and resistance to realize their right to vote,
who have fought tirelessly to make sure America lives up to
its full potential. Voting is a crucial part of what we must
do to hold our elected officials--to hold America--
accountable to not just the dream that Rev. Martin Luther
King, Jr. laid out for us, but also the promise that America
has held since its beginnings. Yes, it's a promise
historically marred by injustice, but it is the promise of a
better way. It is a sin and a shame to witness how voting
rights have been suppressed and denied since 2013. Voting is
a way that we claim the freedom that we have in America. Our
most urgent request to Congress is the same as that made by
MLK over 40 years ago: give us the ballot.--Rev. Dr. Leslie
Copeland-Tune, Chief Operating Officer, National Council of
Churches
By our own admission, within our most precious documents,
we acknowledge that ALL people are part of God's creation and
that we are one nation under God. As such, our democracy says
that every citizen should be respected regardless of sex,
race, national origin, etc. and that the government is
accountable to defend and protect the rights of its public,
its citizens. The most precious nature of America society is
the right to vote. We have the dignity of citizenship rights;
laws are necessary to defend that dignity and those rights,
unobstructed, so citizens can enjoy voting and electing their
officials.--Imam Dr. Talib M. Shareef, USAF-Retired,
President, Masjid Muhammad, The Nation's Mosque
My faith teaches that every person is imbued with dignity,
and in a secular democracy our vote is an indicator of that
worth. Voter suppression and intimidation is a familiar, age-
old practice of marginalizing people in poverty and people of
color. A democratic system that suppresses the vote of any
citizen is not only unconstitutional, it is dehumanizing.
This dehumanizing must stop! Our nation is better than this.
A significant step forward would be to pass a 21st Century
Voting Rights Act now. This cannot wait. It is the faithful
and patriotic way forward.--Sister Simone Campbell, SSS,
Executive Director of NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social
Justice
The United Methodist Church affirms the critical role of
governments in protecting the rights of all people to free
and fair elections. In particular, the Church support efforts
to dismantle policies and practices that disenfranchise
communities of color and perpetuate systemic injustice.''--
Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe, General Secretary, General Board
of Church and Society of The United Methodist Church
The Religious Society of Friends (Quaker) faith was founded
on the belief in the equality of all. Voter suppression in
the United States violates this central belief and we must
work to assure everyone has the right to vote. We call on
lawmakers across the nation to take a stand against voter
suppression and pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R.
4).--Diane Randall, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on
National Legislation
The requirement of society to provide human dignity for
all, which stands at the root of all theological traditions,
strikes a blow at the very heart of the spurious arguments
made by those who want to prevent others from voting based on
age, race, disability, or history of contact with the
criminal justice system. As an organization that works with
many who come from communities that have been historically
subjected to all forms of discrimination, the National
Religious Campaign Against Torture believes that the right to
vote and to fully participate in the democracy is a sacred
right and one that should never be taken away from anyone,
for any reason.--Rev. Dr. Ron Stief, Executive Director,
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
As Franciscans, our Christian faith teaches us that we must
recognize each person as a gift from God, and that we must
emphasize the importance of the essential humanity and
dignity of each person. Pope Francis has called on us to
``meddle in politics'' and we interpret this concept as a
requirement that all Americans must have an equal say in the
public square. Therefore, we must immediately call on
Congress to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act to ensure
that all Americans are able to vote.--Patrick Carolan,
Executive Director, Franciscan Action Network
At the National Council of Jewish Women, we are guided by
the Jewish imperative to pursue tzedek, or justice. For
justice to be realized, all eligible voters must have an
opportunity to participate in the electoral process. Without
access to the ballot, we can't elect lawmakers who represent
our communities and our needs. Congress must restore the full
strength of the Voting Rights Act without delay.--Sheila
Katz, CEO, National Council of Jewish Women
It was when the collective voice of the people cried out to
the Lord in Exodus 3:9 that God hears and sent deliverance to
Nation of Israel! Voting by the oppressed was the way black
people could lift up their voices, cry out, and participate
in creating a more just nation! Restoration of the Voting
Rights Act so all voices are heard is essential to perfecting
this nation and assuring that it does not return to and
separate but unequal society!--Rev. Reuben D. Eckels, Church
World Service (CWS)
Since voting is so fundamental to our democracy, all
citizens should be committed to making it possible for
everyone to exercise that right. The Voting Rights
Advancement Act is critical to having a genuine
representative democracy and to make sure that the most
vulnerable populations are not disenfranchised from the
democratic process. People of faith are concerned that the
voice of the people be truly representative of all the
people.--Bishop John Stowe, Bishop-President, Pax Christi USA
In the Bible, we are reminded that ``when justice is done,
it brings joy to the righteous'' (Proverbs 21:15). The
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) understands
that justice is done when we live out our mutual
responsibility for one another by guaranteeing our neighbor's
right to vote and participate freely and fully in society. In
2013, the ELCA Churchwide Assembly, our denomination's
highest legislative authority, adopted a social policy
resolution titled Voting Rights to All Citizens. This
resolution calls us to express concern for our nation's
history of voter suppression from the Jim Crow era to the
current climate of restrictive voter laws that create
barriers to many people of color in their right to vote. This
resolution calls on all part of this church to ``promote
public life worthy of the name'' by speaking out as advocates
and engaging in local efforts such as voter registration and
supporting legislation to guarantee the right to vote to all
citizens. We support the Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R.
2978) as a key step in ensuring the voices of all citizens
will be safeguarded and heard through its provisions which
would help reinstate guidelines that ensure protection
through oversight and combat voter suppression.--Rev. Amy
Reumann, Director of Advocacy, Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has been a long-time
advocate for voting rights. We were deeply dismayed by the
actions of the Supreme Court to void Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. This decision left many people of color
vulnerable to discriminatory voting laws that have
historically plagued communities of color. Voting is our
right as U.S. citizens. Taking away or restricting one's
ability to exercise their voice at the polls is not only
immoral; it is unconstitutional. The actions of many states
in passing

[[Page H9327]]

extremely restrictive voting laws are unjust and must be
addressed. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once
stated, ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere.'' Congress must stand on the side of justice and
restore the Voting Rights Act.--Rev. Jimmie R. Hawkins,
Director of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Office of Public
Witness
As Reform Jews, our teachings motivate our advocacy to
protect voting rights and fight voter suppression. Rabbi
Yitzhak taught, ``A ruler is not to be appointed unless the
community is first consulted,'' (Babylonian Talmud Berochot
55a). Diminished federal voter protections and rampant voter
suppression undermines the ability of all people,
particularly communities of color, to participate in our
democracy. It is time for Congress to restore those
protections and pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R.
4/S. 561). Our faith's commitment to political participation
demands that Congress pass this Shelby fix as a step towards
ensuring that the whole community is represented.--Rabbi
Jonah Dov Pesner, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Voting is at the heart of the democratic process. It is the
most fundamental access point for individuals to have a voice
in the public policy decision-making process that can shape
the future of our local, regional and global collective life.
As people of faith, we believe every vote is a voice, and
every voices counts. It is unconscionable that we are
entering the 2020 election season with fewer voting rights
protections than we had in 1965. This signals an erosion of
our democracy that is a moral crisis. The right to vote is a
national value that transcends partisanship. It goes beyond
political party identification to our core values as a nation
and the centrality of a citizen's free vote, not limited by
the powers of money, social class and unequal access to
voting. It is imperative that we pass a fix for the damage
done by the Supreme Court Shelby decision by restoring voter
protections.--Sandra Sorensen, Director of Washington Office,
United Church of Christ (UCC)
The National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd calls on Congress to pass the Voting Rights
Advancement Act. We have seen over the last six years
increasing hostility to full voting rights for all Americans
since the U.S. Supreme Court partially struck down the Voting
Rights Act. We have seen new barriers put up to restrict the
number of voters of color, suppressing the full American
voice and skewing our response to important civil and human
rights issues in need of our attention. As people of faith,
we are called to liberate the oppressed and marginalized.
Please restore the vote.--Lawrence E. Couch, Director,
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
It is clearer than ever today that democracy is a process,
not a static state. Democracy requires care, investment, and
vigilance to ensure all voices are represented. The shameful
history of racism in U.S. voting systems is not over, and new
approaches designed to restrict certain communities' access
to a free and fair vote cannot be tolerated. The federal
government must act now to reinstate and expand protections
of voting rights for all people.--Joyce Ajlouny, General
Secretary, American Friends Service Committee
The right to vote without any impediments or obstructions
is one of the most basic privileges of our democracy
belonging to all age-eligible American citizens regardless of
race, religion, or gender orientation. I call upon our Senate
and House to protect this sacred right which is critical for
the defense of all our other rights and privileges.--Rev. Dr.
Jeffrey Haggray, American Baptist Home Mission Societies
American Baptist Churches, USA have officially advocated
for voter rights for many decades and we continue ``. . . to
declare the right to vote to be a basic human right, and
support programs and measures to assure this right. The right
of citizenship in a nation, to participate in the political
process, to form political parties, to have a voice in
decisions made in the political arena are basic undeniable
human rights. The Bible teaches us that all humanity is
created in God's image and that we are all valuable in God's
sight.''--Dr. C. Jeff Woods, Acting General Secretary,
American Baptist Churches, USA
We are the church, the body of Christ in this world, at
this time. We need to stop the racist suppression of the
votes of people of color. Denying people their right to vote
is counter to the will of God. This is especially true when
rich and powerful interests seek to deny people who have been
historically marginalized from shaping our society. We need
to change our policies and our laws to make voting a concrete
reality for all of God's children.--Rev. Ms. Paula Clayton
Dempsey, Executive Minister, Alliance of Baptists
People have a right and a duty to participate in society,
seeking together the common good and wellbeing of all
persons, especially the poor and vulnerable. Voter
suppression laws strike at this tenet of Catholic Social
Teaching by denying that right to those who are
disproportionately poor, especially African American, Native
American and Hispanic American communities. As faithful
citizens of every faith and humanitarian tradition, we affirm
our common responsibility to promote the dignity of every
person and to work for justice and the common good. That can
only happen if we are all afforded the basic right to vote
and to participate fully in our democratic process.--Scott
Wright, Director, Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
As Unitarian Universalists, our 5th Principle affirms ``the
right of conscience and the use of the democratic process
within our congregations and in society at large''.
Therefore, we advocate for restoration of full protections
under the Voting Rights Act. When our democracy is in peril,
so too are our civil rights. Racial discrimination and voter
suppression are on the rise--an unacceptable circumstance to
freedom-loving citizens of the United States and one that our
faith calls us to confront. The pernicious impacts of Shelby
County v. Holder must be halted and reversed.
As the leader of a faith-based education, witness and
advocacy organization, I know that issues like poverty,
immigration, climate change, and rising inequity in our
society cannot improve unless we defend the basic tenets of
our democracy. Our democracy works best when everyone can
fully participate. Congress should strive to make our
elections more free, more fair and more accessible. The more
Americans who participate in our elections, the better our
democracy reflects who we are as a country and the better we
can meet the complex challenges of our times.--(Pablo) Pavel
DeJesus, Executive Director, Unitarian Universalists for
Social Justice (UUSJ).
____

Lawyers' Committee for Civil

Rights Under Law,

December 3, 2019.
Re Recommended Vote in Favor of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights
Advancement Act.

Dear Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: On
behalf of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
a nonpartisan civil rights organization formed at the request
of President Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership
and resources in combating racial discrimination and securing
equal justice under law, I am writing to urge you to vote in
favor of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA). We
oppose any Motion to Recommit (MTR).
The VRAA would restore the Section 5 preclearance process
that was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 2013 Shelby
County v. Holder decision by creating a new formula for
coverage that ensures that only states and jurisdictions with
a recent history of voting discrimination or use of voter
suppression practices would be subject to review prior to
implementing new voting laws or procedures.
Prior to Shelby, covered jurisdictions had to provide
notice to the federal government--which meant notice to the
public--before they could implement changes in their voting
practices or procedures. Such notice is of paramount
importance, because the ways that the voting rights of
minority citizens are jeopardized are often subtle. They
range from the consolidation of polling places so as to make
it less convenient for minority voters to vote, to the
curtailing of early voting hours that makes it more difficult
for hourly-wage earners to vote, to the disproportionate
purging of minority voters from voting lists under the
pretext of ``list maintenance.''
In the more than six years since the Shelby decision, the
floodgates to voting discrimination have been swung open,
threating the voting rights of millions of Americans. The
gutting of the core protection of the Voting Rights Act did
not simply harm African Americans and other people of color,
it challenged the very foundation of our democracy and our
decades-long march towards equality. Voting is the right that
is ``preservative of all rights,'' because it empowers people
to elect candidates of their choice, who will then govern and
legislate to advance other rights. But, voting rights have
always been contested in this country, with gains in turnout
and representation by people of color often met with an
inevitable backlash that sought to reduce their electoral
power.
The passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 marked a
turning point in our nation, when the promise of equal
justice and democracy in our Constitution was made real for
people of color for the first time in our history. Since that
time, overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress have
reauthorized the Voting Rights Act several times, each time
amassing a significant congressional record of the current
threats to the franchise and implementing changes to ensure
the ongoing efficacy of the Voting Rights Act. Now, we ask
you to take the mantle from your predecessors and restore the
full protections of the Voting Rights Act by passing H.R. 4,
the VRAA.
Thank you for your leadership in protecting the fundamental
right to vote and our democracy by voting for H.R. 4, the
VRAA, and by opposing any Motion to Recommit.
Sincerely,
Kristen Clarke,
President & Executive Director.
____

The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, December 4, 2019.

Support H.R. 4, Voting Rights Advancement Act

Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200
national organizations committed to promoting and

[[Page H9328]]

protecting the civil and human rights of all persons in the
United States, and the 68 undersigned organizations, we write
in strong support of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement
Act. We oppose any Motion to Recommit.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is one of the most
successful civil rights laws ever enacted. Congress passed
the VRA in direct response to evidence of significant and
pervasive discrimination across the country, including the
use of literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, threats, and
violence. By outlawing the tests and devices that prevented
people of color from voting, the VRA and its prophylactic
preclearance formula put teeth into the 15th Amendment's
guarantee that no citizen can be denied the right to vote
because of the color of their skin.
H.R. 4 has received vocal and vigorous support from the
civil rights community because it responds to the urgent need
to stop the abuses by state and local governments in the
aftermath of the Supreme Court's infamous 2013 decision in
Shelby County v. Holder, when five justices of the Supreme
Court invalidated the VRA's preclearance provision. In its
decision, the Court stated: ``Our country has changed, and
while any racial discrimination in voting is too much,
Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy
that problem speaks to current conditions.''
Since Shelby County, discriminatory policies have
proliferated nationwide and continued in areas formerly
covered by the preclearance requirement. In states, counties,
and cities across the country, public officials have pushed
through laws and policies designed to make it harder for many
communities to vote. While we have celebrated successful
legal challenges to discriminatory voter ID laws in Texas and
North Carolina, such victories occurred only after elections
in those states were tainted by discrimination. Lost votes
cannot be reclaimed and discriminatory elections cannot be
undone.
But voter suppression is not merely the province of those
states with a long history of discrimination. Pernicious
practices such as voter purging and restrictive
identification requirements--which disproportionately affect
voters of color--occur in states throughout the nation.
Although progress has been made, some elected leaders in this
country are still working to silence people who were
historically denied access to the ballot box.
During the 116th Congress, the U.S. House Committee on the
Judiciary held extensive hearings and found significant
evidence that barriers to voter participation remain for
people of color and language-minority voters in African-
American, Asian American, Latinx, and Native American
communities. The hearings examined the History and
Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (March 12,
2019), Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in the State of
Texas (May 3, 2019), Continuing Challenges to the Voting
Rights Act Since Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2019),
Discriminatory Barriers to Voting (September 5, 2019),
Evidence of Current and Ongoing Voting Discrimination
(September 10, 2019), Congressional Authority to Protect
Voting Rights After Shelby County v. Holder (September 24,
2019), and Legislative Proposals to Strengthen the Voting
Rights Act (October 17, 2019). The Committee on House
Administration also conducted numerous hearings and amassed
significant evidence of voter suppression during the 116th
Congress.
H.R. 4 restores and modernizes the Voting Rights Act by:
Creating a new coverage formula that hinges on a finding of
repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years.
Significantly, the 25-year period is measured on a rolling
basis to keep up with ``current conditions,'' so only states
and political subdivisions that have a recent record of
racial discrimination in voting are covered.
States and political subdivisions that qualify for
preclearance will be covered for a period of 10 years, but if
they establish a clean record during that time period, they
can be extracted from coverage.
Establishing ``practice-based preclearance,'' a targeted
process for reviewing voting changes in jurisdictions
nationwide focused on measures that have historically been
used to discriminate against voters of color. The process for
reviewing changes in voting is limited to a set of practices,
including:
Changes to the methods of elections (to or from at-large
elections) in areas that are racially, ethnically, or
linguistically diverse;
Reductions in language assistance;
Annexations changing jurisdictional boundaries in areas
that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse;
Redistricting in areas that are racially, ethnically, or
linguistically diverse;
Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling locations in
areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically
diverse; and
Changes in documentation or requirements to vote or
register.
H.R. 4 also:
Allows a federal court to order states or jurisdictions to
be covered for results-based violations, where the effect of
a particular voting measure is racial discrimination in
voting and denying citizens their right to vote;
Increases transparency by requiring reasonable public
notice for voting changes;
Allows the attorney general authority to request the
presence of federal observers anywhere in the country where
there is a serious threat of racial discrimination in voting;
and
Revises and tailors the preliminary injunction standard for
voting rights actions to recognize that there will be cases
where there is a need for immediate preliminary relief.
For over half a century, protecting citizens from racial
discrimination in voting has been bipartisan work. The VRA
was passed with leadership from both the Republican and
Democratic parties, and the reauthorizations of the
enforcement provisions were signed into law each time by
Republican presidents: President Nixon in 1970, President
Ford in 1975, President Reagan in 1982, and President Bush
in 2006.
Voting must transcend partisanship. No matter what policy
issues we care most about, we get closer to these goals
through the ballot box. The integrity of our democracy
depends on ensuring that every eligible voter can participate
in the electoral process. Passing H.R. 4 would be a giant
step toward restoring the right to vote and undoing the
damage done by the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision.
During the civil rights movement, brave Americans gave their
lives for the right to vote, and we cannot allow their legacy
and the protections they fought for to unravel. We urge
Congress to pass this historic legislation.
Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights;
Advancement Project; American Federation of Labor and
Congress of Industrial Organizations, African American
Ministers In Action; American Association of University
Women; American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American
Federation of Teachers; Andrew Goodman Foundation; Anti-
Defamation League; Arab American Institute; Asian Americans
Advancing Justice--AAJC; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bend
the Arc: Jewish Action; Blue Future; Brennan Center for
Justice at NYU School of Law; Campaign Legal Center.
Connecticut Citizen Action Group; Clean Elections Texas;
Communications Workers of America (CWA); Congregation of Our
Lady of Charity ofthe Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces;
Democracy 21; Democracy Initiative; Demos; End Citizens
United Action Fund; FairVote Action; Fix Democracy First;
Franciscan Action Network; Generation Progress; Greenpeace
USA; Human Rights Campaign; Our Own Voice: National Black
Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda; International Union,
United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, (UAW).
Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law; Leadership Conference of Women
Religious; League of Conservation Voters Education Fund;
League of Women Voters of the United States; Main Street
Alliance; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF); National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP); NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
Inc.; NALEO Educational Fund; National Action Network;
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd;
National Council of Jewish Women; National Disability Rights
Network (NDRN); National Education Association.
National Urban League; Native American Rights Fund; NETWORK
Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; New American Leaders
Action Fund; People Demanding Action; People For the American
Way; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Progressive
Turnout Project; Public Citizen; Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism; Service Employees International Union (SEIU);
Sierra Club; Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund; Stand
Up America; Texas Progressive Action Network; UnidosUS; Union
for Reform Judaism; United Church of Christ, Justice and
Witness Ministries; Voices for Progress; YWCA USA.
____

MALDEF,

December 4, 2019.
Re MALDEF Urges Support of the Voting Rights Advancement Act
of 2019, H.R. 4.

House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: There is no right more fundamental to
our democracy than the right to vote, and for Latino voters
and other voters of color, that right is in danger. Following
the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which effectively
ended preclearance review under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), states and localities moved to
implement discriminatory voting practices that would
previously have been blocked by the VRA. What we have seen
post-Shelby County confirms what we have long-known--that
voter discrimination lives on. Congress must act to restore
the preclearance coverage formula in the VRA, legislation
that has long-enjoyed bipartisan support. MALDEF (Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), the nation's
leading Latino legal civil rights organization, urges you to
support the Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA) of 2019,
H.R. 4, to reenact safeguards to protect minority voters from
discriminatory voting laws.
The VRA is regarded as one of the most important and
effective pieces of civil rights legislation due to its
ability to protect voters of color from discriminatory voting
practices before they take place. Since its founding, MALDEF
has focused on securing equal

[[Page H9329]]

voting rights for Latinos, and promoting increased civic
engagement and participation within the Latino community, as
among its top priorities. MALDEF played a significant role in
securing the full protection of the VRA for the Latino
community through the 1975 congressional reauthorization of
the VRA. Over its now 51-year history, MALDEF has litigated
numerous cases under section 2, section 5, and section 203 of
the VRA, challenging at-large systems, discriminatory
redistricting, ballot access barriers, undue voter
registration restrictions, and failure to provide bilingual
materials. As the growth of the Latino population expands,
our work in voting rights increases as well.
Section 5 of the VRA required states with a history of
discrimination in voting to seek pre-approval of voting-
related changes from the U.S. Department of Justice or a
three-judge panel in Washington, DC. A voting-related change
that would have left minority voters worse off than before
the change would be blocked. The states and political
subdivisions that were required to submit voting-related
changes for preclearance were determined by a coverage
formula in section 4 of the VRA. The preclearance scheme--an
efficient and effective form of alternative dispute
resolution--prevented the implementation of voting-related
changes that would have denied voters of color a voice in our
elections, and it deterred many more restrictions from ever
being conceived. The Supreme Court in Shelby County--struck
down section 4 and called on Congress to enact a new formula
better tailored to current history. As a result, currently,
states or political subdivisions are no longer required to
seek preclearance unless ordered by a federal court.
However, Chief Justice Roberts recognized in the majority
opinion in Shelby County that, ``voting discrimination still
exists; no one doubts that.'' Across the U.S., racial,
ethnic, and language-minority communities are rapidly
growing--the country's total population is projected to
become majority minority by 2044. Many officials in states
and local jurisdictions fear losing political power, and the
rapid growth of communities of color is often seen as a
threat to existing political establishments. Fear provokes
those in positions of power to implement changes to dilute
the voting power of the perceived threatening minority
community. Unfortunately, now that states and local
jurisdictions are not required to submit voting-related
changes for review, there is no longer a well-kept track
record on newly implemented discriminatory practices.
Nonetheless, we know, based on our litigation and analysis of
voting changes, that states and local jurisdictions are still
using discriminatory voting tactics to suppress the political
power of minority communities.
Last month, MALDEF, NALEO, and Asian Americans Advancing
Justice--AAJC released a new report, Practice-Based
Preclearance: Protecting Against Tactics Persistently Used to
Silence Minority Communities' Votes, detailing the need for
forward-looking voting rights legislation that provides
protections for emerging minority populations. During the
VRA's more than 50-year history, all racial and ethnic
populations grew, but the growth of communities of color
significantly outpaced nonHispanic whites. While there are
states and localities where communities of color have
traditionally resided in larger numbers, growing communities
of historically underrepresented voters are now emerging in
new parts of the U.S. Between 2007 and 2014, five of the ten
U.S. counties that experienced the most rapid rates of Latino
population growth were in North Dakota or South Dakota, two
states whose overall Latino populations still account for
less than ten percent of their residents and are dwarfed by
Latino communities in states like New Mexico, Texas, and
California. It is precisely this rapid growth of different
racial or ethnic populations that results in the perception
that emerging communities of color are a threat to those in
political power.
H.R. 4 includes important protections for these emerging
populations in the form of practice-based preclearance, or
``known-practices'' coverage. Known-practices coverage would
focus administrative or judicial review narrowly on suspect
practices that are most likely to be tainted by
discriminatory intent or to have discriminatory effects, as
demonstrated by a broad historical record. This coverage
would extend to any jurisdiction in the U.S. that is home to
a racially, ethnically, and/or linguistically diverse
population and that seeks to adopt a covered practice,
despite that practice's known likelihood of being
discriminatory when used in a diverse population. The known
practices that would be required to be pre-approved before
adopted in a diverse state or political subdivision include:
1) changes in method of election to add or replace a single-
member district with an at-large seat to a governing body, 2)
certain redistricting plans where there is significant
minority population growth in the previous decade, 3)
annexations or deannexations that would significantly alter
the composition of the jurisdiction's electorate, 4) certain
identification and proof of citizenship requirements, 5)
certain polling place closures and realignments, and 6) the
withdrawal of multilingual materials and assistance when not
matched by the reduction of those services in English. The
Practice-Based Preclearance report looked at these different
types of changes and found, based on two separate analyses of
voting discrimination, that these known practices occur with
great frequency in the modern era.
Congress must protect access to the polls and pass the
VRAA, with known-practice coverage provisions. The VRAA is a
critical piece of legislation that will restore voter
protections that were lost due to the Shelby County decision.
We cannot allow another federal election cycle to take place
without ensuring that every voter can register and cast a
meaningful ballot. MALDEF urges you to stand with all voters
and to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4.
Sincerely,
Andrea Senteno,
Regional Counsel.
____

SEIU,

December 4, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of two million members of
the Service Employees International Union (``SEIU''), I am
writing to urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 4, the Voting
Rights Advancement Act (VRAA), which will proceed to the
House floor for a vote on final passage this week.
Following the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby v.
Holder, we have seen a surge of voter suppression tactics by
states and localities. These shameful tactics include the
enactment of strict voter ID laws, the purge of voters from
state voter rolls, and the closure of hundreds of polling
places that negatively impacts the ability of people of
color, immigrants, young people, and other historically
marginalized groups from accessing their constitutional right
to vote. In 2016 alone, 14 states passed new laws that
restricted access to the ballot for hard working Americans
and since then multiple federal courts found intentional
racial discrimination in our elections. These unjust actions
by states and localities to our electoral system must be
addressed with urgency to ensure the voices of working
people--Black, white & brown--are heard at the ballot box.
H.R. 4 is an essential piece of legislation that will
restore critical civil rights protections for voters while
providing clear and consistent voting laws for every state to
ensure all eligible citizens can participate in our
democracy. The VRAA responds to the wave of biased attacks on
our election system since the Shelby decision by establishing
a ``rolling'' nationwide trigger mechanism so that only
states that have a recent record of racial discrimination in
voting would be covered. Under the legislation, these states
would have to submit any changes in their voting laws to be
precleared before implementation. In addition, the VRAA would
grant more power to the federal courts to hold accountable
states or jurisdictions whose voting practices have
discriminatory results. The VRAA is the dire reform of our
electoral system that our nation needs in order to restore
this fundamental right and make our democracy more accessible
to all people.
Our democracy works best when all eligible voters, no
matter their color or how much money they make, can
participate in free and fair elections to make their voices
heard. We need Congress to restore integrity to our election
system. On behalf of our members, we are proud to support
this legislation to strengthen our democracy and values as a
nation. We will add votes on this legislation, including the
motion to recommit, to our legislative scorecard.
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Henry,
International President.
____

AFSCME,

December 3, 2019.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the members of the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), I write in support of the Voting Rights Advancement
Act (VRAA, H.R. 4). The VRAA is an important first step to
restoring voting rights protections and the Voting Rights Act
(VRA) of 1965.
Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the VRA of
1965 was landmark legislation necessary to secure the right
to vote for every citizen. It ensured that state and local
governments would not deny any American the equal right to
vote based on race, color or membership in a minority
language group.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County,
Alabama v. Holder undermined the VRA, and eliminated the
significant requirement for states and localities with a
well-documented history of discrimination to ``preclear'' any
new changes to voting practices and procedures. As a result,
those with a history of voter disenfranchisement would no
longer have to get approval from the Department of Justice or
a court to show that their laws do not have a discriminatory
purpose or effect. The results have been devastating and pose
a significant blow to the protections provided in the VRA. In
the wake of the decision, over three dozen state legislatures
have enacted new onerous restrictions on voter access. These
recent actions include onerous voter ID laws, restrictions on
early voting, and excessive purges of voter registration
lists, all of which subsequently make voting less accessible,
less transparent, more difficult, and challenging for many
voters.
H.R. 4 is needed to restore fairness. It establishes a new
coverage formula based on repeated voting rights violations
over the preceding 25 years of a state's political
subdivisions. It also responds to nationwide discrimination
and requires ``practice-based preclearance'' for known
disenfranchisement

[[Page H9330]]

strategies that disproportionately target communities of
color.
The VRA is one of our nation's most important civil rights
laws. It is central to any effort to build a representative
democracy where citizens can exercise their most basic right
to vote. I strongly urge you to support H.R. 4 when it comes
before the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government of Affairs.
____

American Federation of Teachers,

December 6, 2019.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 1.7 million
members of the American Federation of Teachers, I write in
strong support of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act
of 2019.
This important bill is a commonsense approach that responds
to the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v.
Holder, which struck down a long-standing key provision of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act enshrined the
right to free and fair elections in our country. But in 2013,
the Supreme Court weakened the ``preclearance requirement''
of the Voting Rights Act, deeming it no longer justified to
address the racial and geographic disparities it sought to
remedy when enacted. As a result, laws restricting voting
rights throughout the United States surged. In fact, an
analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice found that between
2016 and 2018, counties with a history of voter
discrimination purged voters from the rolls at much higher
rates than other counties. This trend is a direct consequence
of the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v. Holder.
It is an understatement to say that the Supreme Court's
decision ignored the real-life and ongoing efforts to
suppress voting rights across our nation. Today, the renewed
disenfranchisement tactics of old include, but are not
limited to, restrictive voter ID laws, outcome-driven
redistricting, limited voting hours and opportunities, and
misinformation about polling places and times. And let's be
clear, these tactics are all engineered to disproportionately
affect the voting rights of African American, Latinx,
immigrant and low-income voters, as well as students and
seniors.
It is imperative that Congress take new action to ensure
the efficacy of the Voting Rights Act. We do not want future
generations of students to read in their history lessons that
the Supreme Court in 2013 turned the clock back on decades of
progress in voting rights and that that was the final word.
Passage of H.R. 4 is a critical step toward fulfilling our
aspirations for a stronger democracy, where all voters can
exercise their fundamental rights. The long-term damage of
not doing so is unacceptable.
To this end, I encourage you to fulfill your civic duty by
ensuring all Americans have their most fundamental of civil
rights protected by voting YES on H.R. 4.
Thank you for considering our views on this important
matter.
Sincerely,
Randi Weingarten,
President.
____

National Council of

Jewish Women,

December 4, 2019.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The National Council of Jewish Women
(NCJW) urges you to vote for the Voting Rights Advancement
Act (H.R. 4) when it comes to the floor this week and vote
against any Motion to Recommit.
NCJW is a grassroots organization of volunteers and
advocates who turn progressive ideals into action. Throughout
its history, NCJW has educated and engaged our members and
supporters to drive voter turnout and expand voting rights,
including advocating for women's suffrage and the historic
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). This work is in pursuit of
tzedek, or justice--a core value of Judaism an inspiration
for our advocacy. Today, we work for election laws, policies,
and practices that ensure easy and equitable access and
eliminate obstacles to the electoral process so that every
vote counts and can be verified.
H.R. 4 would restore the Voting Rights Act to its former
strength. The 2013 Shelby decision effectively ended the
federal government's ability, granted by the VRA, to preclear
changes to state and local election laws before they went
into effect. In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts urged
Congress to update the formula that determines which
jurisdictions need to participate in preclearance. H.R. 4
does exactly that by creating a new coverage formula based on
the preceding 25 years.
Voter suppression most harms already marginalized
communities. Since Shelby, dozens of laws have passed across
the country making it easier to suppress the vote. These laws
disproportionately impact communities of color, minority-
language speakers, low-income voters, elderly and young
voters, women, and transgender individuals.
Voting is a fundamental right, protective of all other
rights. Congress has the power and responsibility to ensure
that every eligible person can cast a ballot by passing H.R.
4.
Sincerely,

Jody Rabhan,

Chief Policy Officer.
____

Public Citizen,

December 5, 2019.
Dear Representative: Tomorrow, the House of Representatives
will vote on the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 (H.R.
4). This is an historic moment to cure an historic injustice.
Public Citizen strongly urges you to vote for H.R. 4.
The principle of ``one person, one vote'' is critical to
our constitutional democracy--but for too much of our history
it was honored in the breach. The passage of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is one of the proudest moments in
American history, as it affirmed this principle and corrected
the shameful denial and suppression of votes to African
Americans and other people of color.
Shamefully, however, the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby
County v. Holder stripped away Section 5 of the VRA, a
cornerstone of the law's protections. Since the Shelby
ruling, 23 states have enacted laws that disenfranchise
individuals and groups by restricting their ability to vote.
These sorts of repressive voter suppression tactics are
precisely the sort of draconian, discriminatory measures the
VRA was enacted to prevent.
It is essential that H.R. 4 be enacted into law to repair
the damage done by the Shelby decision. This legislation
would modernize the VRA and restore protections necessary to
prevent racial voter discrimination, voter purges and voter
suppression.
The heroes of the civil rights movement fought for the
VRA's original passage in 1965 amidst harsh Jim Crow-era
disenfranchisement laws and in the face of violent
opposition. It is utterly unconscionable that our nation has
backtracked on the voting rights progress achieved after
passage of the Voting Rights Act. Our country is better than
this.
Public Citizen urges in the strongest terms that you to
vote in favor of H.R. 4 and oppose any efforts that could
weaken or undermine the legislation.
Sincerely,
Robert Weissman,
President.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 741, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 4 is postponed.

____________________