[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 195 (Friday, December 6, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9338-H9339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ONE VOTE, ONE PERSON
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to again indicate the enormity
of what we accomplished today in voting for H.R. 4.
It seems like H.R. 4 has been the center point of giving opportunity
to so many across the Nation. That is a bill to give every American one
vote, one person.
It was derailed in the Shelby case from Alabama, misguided by a 5-4
decision by the Supreme Court, ignoring the sacrifice of our colleague,
the Honorable John Lewis, who almost died on the Edmund Pettus
Bridge, brutally attacked by State and local police. That is the same
as local laws and State laws continuing into the decade to oppress
voters.
I indicated in that case, that 5-4 decision, that wrongheaded
decision, that H.R. 4 corrects, that it was as if we were getting the
best of polio and we said we no longer need the vaccine.
I have lived through the question of purging, along with my friends
from MALDEF and the NAACP legal defense fund, and I worked hard to get
language into H.R. 4 that would stop people being purged illegally off
the polls, off the rolls.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from MALDEF and a
letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
MALDEF,
Los Angeles, CA, 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 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 modem 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.
Please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Andrea Senteno,
Regional Counsel.
____
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,
December 4, 2019.
support h.r. 4, voting rights and 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 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
[[Page H9339]]
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 of the 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; In 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.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, now we have a recognition, that one
vote, one person, we will fight to get this signed by the President
because the Constitution allows and declares one vote, one person.
____________________